Poverty Vs. Education: 4-6 pg essay

Poverty, Self-Regulation and Executive Function, and Learning in K-2 Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review of Current Empirical Research Karyn A. Allee-Herndon and Sherron Killingsworth Roberts

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

ABSTRACT Children living in poverty frequently enter kindergarten lacking critical cognitive, academic, and social-emotional skills, and this gap predictably widens through 12th grade. Several researchers have developed interven- tion programs intended to close the academic gap by building foundational curricular skills. These interventions may not be the most efficacious meth- ods to address student needs. Given recent efforts to establish early child- hood education standards and the implicit push to close learning and achievement gaps, it is important to identify research-based interventions for practitioners and decision makers. The purpose of this systematic review of empirical literature, reduced from 115 to 19 articles, was to identify research related to specific pedagogical and instructional approaches used to impact poverty’s effects on elementary children’s academic perfor- mance. The results of all 19 studies support emerging research suggesting that executive function is negatively impacted by poverty, highly malleable in early childhood, and strongly predictive of academic success when children enter school. Focusing on developing these skills, in addition to specific disciplinary skills, may help young at-risk learners gain a significant advantage in school.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 July 2017 Accepted 8 January 2019

KEYWORDS Academic achievement; early childhood education; elementary education; executive function; intervention; learning; poverty

Poverty poses the single greatest threat to children’s well-being, especially if experienced in early childhood, persistent or generational poverty, or extreme poverty (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Child Trends Data Bank, 2016; Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998; Koball & Jiang, 2018a). An increasing number of children attend public schools in the United States, with approxi- mately 16.4 million children expected to enroll in public elementary primary grades (K-2) in the fall of 2018 alone, and 50.8 million children expected in public PK-12 schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016; Snyder, de Brey, & Dillow, 2016). Of the 72.4 million U.S. children younger than age 18, over 41% live in low-income households, a category that subsumes near poverty (100%–199% of the federal poverty threshold or FPT), poverty, and deep poverty (Koball & Jiang, 2018b; National Center for Children in Poverty, 2018). As of 2016, 14 million (or 19%) of U. S. children younger than age 18 live below the FPT (≤ 99% FPT) and are considered to be officially poor, 6.2 million children (or 8.6%) live in deep poverty (≤ 49% FPT), and 13% of U.S. children live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (Koball & Jiang, 2018b).

Concurrently, K-2 teachers may feel challenged to meet the seemingly competing demands of providing standards-aligned rigorous instruction and child-centered developmentally appropriate prac- tice (DAP; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Copple, Daniel, & Tomlinson, 2007; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2005, 2009). The authors of this manuscript have spent their

CONTACT Karyn A. Allee-Herndon, PhD [email protected] Assistant Professor, Early Childhood Education, Atlanta Graduate Teacher Education, Tift College of Education, Mercer University, 3001 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341-4155.

Supplemental material for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1613273. © 2019 Childhood Education International

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2019, VOL. 33, NO. 3, 345–362 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1613273

combined careers either teaching in high-need elementary schools or teaching preservice elementary teacher candidates with a focus on increasing educational equity for all marginalized students. We believe that vulnerable children are particularly in need of interventions and instructional approaches that mitigate income-related challenges and support engaged, high-quality learning. Therefore, this systema- tic literature review explored the current empirical research examining the effects of poverty on K-2 learners. Although initiated with curiosity about the impacts of poverty on learning in early childhood education, the study provided a synthesis of current research in order to inform today’s educators on how to mitigate the effects of poverty to increase educational equity.

Notably, the U.S. child poverty rates have been impacted positively by spending on safety-net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though the United States spends considerably less than other nations (Lowrey, 2017). Yet the U.S. child poverty rates have historically been, and continue to be, among the highest of developed nations (Chen & Corak, 2008), with devastating effects on children and society (Lowrey, 2017; National Center for Children in Poverty, 2018). Currently, more than 15.4 million (44%) U.S. children younger than age 9 live in low-income households, 7.4 million (21%) live in poverty, and 3.3 million (> 10%) live in deep poverty (Koball & Jiang, 2018a). About 10.4 million of the children living in low-income homes are between ages 3 and 8 (Koball & Jiang, 2018a).

Although the percentages of children living in poverty or near poverty homes has declined somewhat since the recession in the early 2000s, most public school educators will teach children living with financial insecurities and all the related risk-factors associated with this stressor. The national average of low-income children attending U.S. public schools (PK-12) is 51%, or almost 26 million children (Southern Education Foundation, 2015). When these numbers are disaggregated by state or region, the situation often becomes even more dire; in 21 U.S. states, mostly in the South, a majority (> 50%) of children are living in low-income households.

The trends of the last decade strongly suggest that little or nothing will change for the better if schools and communities continue to postpone addressing the primary question of education in America today: what does it take and what will be done to provide low income students with a good chance to succeed in public schools? It is a question of how, not where, to improve the education of a new majority of students. (Southern Education Foundation, 2015, p. 4)

Given the substantial amount of evidence showing the predictable and persistent achievement gap for the large numbers of children in low-income households, poverty remains the single greatest threat to our K-2 students’ well-being. Poverty has been shown to negatively impact children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, and physical health (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2018). Consequently, educators face a moral imperative to take advantage of every oppor- tunity to improve the educational outcomes for these vulnerable learners.

Therefore, the purpose of this systematic literature review was to identify and synthesize current empirical research (2006–2018) related to specific pedagogical and instructional approaches that address poverty’s impact on K-2 children’s academic performance. The research-based interventions revealed through this literature review are of particular interest to early childhood practitioners, policymakers, and other educational leaders. To ground the formal search for empirical studies, though not necessarily experimental, the following section provides background and a rationale for proceeding with the systematic literature review.

Background and rationale

Existing evidence suggests the salient impact of poverty on language development and preacademic skills (Blair & Raver, 2015; Brown & Low, 2008; Engle & Black, 2008; Sharkins, Leger, & Ernest, 2017; Vallotton et al., 2012). However, less is known about other learning gaps, such as how poverty affects young children’s approaches to learning, persistence, resilience, and other less concrete or tangible skills or dispositions required for success in structured school environments. Blair (as cited in Willoughby, Kupersmidt, Voegler-Lee, & Bryant, 2011) explains self-regulation (SR) as an umbrella set of skills that

346 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

make up the foundational demands required of formal schooling. SR broadly includes self-control, emotional regulation, executive function, problem solving, and grit. Executive function (EF) can be defined as domain-specific mental skills, including task completion, response inhibition, attention control, attention shifting or cognitive flexibility, and working memory (Zelazo, Blair, & Willoughby, 2016). The brain’s management of SR and EF occurs in the prefrontal cortex and affects judgment, differentiation, anticipating outcomes, time management, attention and switch focus, planning and organizing, remembering details, and social-emotional aptitude. Researchers believe early childhood is a critical period for developing SR and EF skills critical for school readiness (Blair, 2016; Blair & Raver, 2015; Fitzpatrick, McKinnon, Blair, & Willoughby, 2014; Zelazo et al., 2016). Likewise, this systematic literature review focused on current empirical studies of K-2 learners because these learners appear to be critically affected.

To date, sparse empirical research exposes educational interventions addressing the effects of poverty on young children’s SR/EF and school readiness, but researchers have recently begun to explore the role of EF on those living in poverty, particularly on young children’s school readiness and academic achievement (Blair, 2016; Zelazo et al., 2016). Harvard researchers (Jones, Bailey, Barnes, & Partee, 2016) analyzed literature from 160 early childhood studies (ages 3 to 6) about SR and EF, which codified specific behaviors and skills. The authors found over 40 unique terms in the research and mapped these terms to illustrate similarities and differences. Research literature, standards, and policy briefs often conflate SR and EF, which leads to an increased likelihood that the key skills linked to long-term outcomes may be misunderstood. For the purposes of this study, SR and EF were each used as unique search terms as well as used interchangeably or similarly in the existing body of literature.

Theoretical framework

Leading researchers are increasingly determining poverty’s impacts on the development of SR and EF (Blair & Raver, 2015; Fitzpatrick et al., 2014). Shonkoff (2011) believes school readiness and achievement gaps can be reduced with high-quality, research-based pedagogy and curriculum in conjunction with a nurturing, supportive environment that reduces stress on developing brains. Existing neurocognitive research suggests a predictive relationship between SR and EF to literacy and numeracy skill development (Shonkoff, 2011; Zelazo et al., 2016). Blair and Raver (2015) and Zelazo (2015) provided evidence linking EF as a predictive agent for academic achievement and socio- economic status for children living in poverty.

“The foundational EF skills begin to emerge around three to four years of age and increase dramatically during the preschool period” (Jones et al., 2016, p. 4). Preliminary data suggest EF, especially working memory, and emotional SR are highly malleable and trainable in early childhood (Zelazo et al., 2016). Some prekindergarten (PK) and kindergarten (K) curricula (e.g., Research-based, Developmentally Informed [REDI] (Bierman, Mathis, & Domitrovich, 2018) program, Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007), Chicago School Readiness Project [CSRP] (Raver et al., 2011), and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies [PATHS] (Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006)) focus on language development in conjunction with social-emotional development aligned with EF (Blair, 2016). Concentration on EF and other SR development does not supplant a focus on learned skills, such as letter knowledge, number sense, or the ability to use scissors, but does position children to succeed (Blair & Raver, 2015; Zelazo, 2015). Safe and nurturing environments, foundational early learning, and SR skills support the development of EF and school readiness (see Supplementary Material). “Converging evidence from multiple fields of study, including cognitive neuroscience, education, and economics, suggests that one of the most promising approaches to ameliorating the socioeconomis status (SES)-related achievement gap is via evidence-based interventions targeting children from lower SES backgrounds early in development” (Pakulak et al., 2015, p. 7–8). Therefore, one important goal of this systematic literature review was to identify highly effective interventions to support SR and EF develop- ment, especially for K-2 children living in poverty, through a formal search of current empirical research publications.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 347

Methods

With the assistance of a research librarian, peer-reviewed, empirical articles published within the last 12 years (2006–2018) were targeted for this literature review through a formal database search. For this study, the search terms used were directly associated to the research questions and included related words and additional search terms identified by the thesauri of the databases to increase the yield of potentially relevant studies (see Supplementary Material for search terms).

Research questions

The following three research questions guided this literature review:

RQ1: What current empirical articles (2006–2018) explore the relationship between early elementary (K-2) education, learning or academic achievement, self-regulation or executive function, and poverty?

RQ2: Of the studies revealed through this systematic literature review, what methodologies, research designs, and themes of findings can be synthesized?

RQ3: Based on the systematic literature review results, how did the experimental studies that tested an intervention improve SR/EF for young children living in poverty?

This systematic literature review explored the current empirical research, published in the last 12 years, which examined the effects of poverty on K-2 learners. To be clear, a meta-analysis could not be enacted given the low n; however, the empirical studies were analyzed to ascertain the effects of poverty, interventions, and targeted instructional approaches. Only research articles focused on K-2 learners were scrutinized to report data outlining types of interventions empirically correlated to specific deficits or needs of K-2 children living in poverty. Therefore, research articles in the current literature that explore poverty, EF, children’s susceptibility or vulnerability, and the educational implications (i.e., Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, & Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2013 or Zelazo et al., 2016) were excluded from this systematic review based on the systematic search criteria. As the current (2006–2018) empirical research articles were explored, evidence-based interventions for young children at risk for poverty-related academic difficulties were revealed.

Procedures for systematic literature review

Searching each of these terms individually generates more substantial results. For example, when searching just the ERIC database for 2006–2018 publications with single terms and all other expanders, limiters, and so forth, the authors found over 510 results for poverty and education, over 613 titles for executive function or self-regulation, and over 14,000 articles on learning or academic achievement. When the search terms were combined, this potential yield of 15,304 articles was reduced to 115 articles, which met the initial search limiters and qualifiers. To ensure reliability, an independent researcher not associated with this study replicated the electronic database searches for inter-rater reliability. The first author and the independent researcher utilized the same databases using the same keywords or subjects and limiters. For each duplicated search, the resulting yield was identical.

Results and discussion

When these 115 articles were more closely examined, the final number of articles was reduced from 115 to 19 (16.52%) because the excluded 96 (84.47%) articles were not truly focused on K-2 learners and aligned with the search terms and the intent of this examination. For example, the studies excluded were

348 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

conducted in middle school, focused on content-based interventions with no focus on self-regulation, or did not include children from low-income backgrounds as part of the sample. The Supplementary Material provides brief details and findings of the 19 articles, with only five articles (4.35%) including an experimental design manipulating variables and testing a specific intervention. A coding system was used to identify sample size, participants, research design, and themes. The Supplementary Material highlights common foci and findings of the 19 identified empirical articles, and detailed notes were taken to support the emerging themes and are provided in the Supplementary Material. The following results and discussion are organized by research question.

RQ1: What current empirical articles (2006–2018) explore the relationship between early elementary (K-2) education, learning or academic achievement, self-regulation or executive function, and poverty?

Using the search described above to explore the relationship between early elementary learning and achievement, SR or EF, poverty, and education, 19 studies were identified. Of these 19 studies, sample sizes ranged from 37 to 18,080 participants. The research designs included 11 longitudinal or extant data analyses, five experimental studies, and three quasi-experimental studies. All but one of the 14 studies that provided gender counts were approximately evenly split between male and female. The average age of participants, when reported, ranged from prekindergarten (mean age 42.3 months) to 4th grade (mean age 9.16 years). When participants’ ages were not included, the authors assumed the mean age to be 5 because kindergarten data sets were used (i.e., the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Cohort of 2011). When participant race or ethnicity was disclosed (17 studies), the bulk indicated at least two different races/ethnicities of students, and the majority group varied across studies. At least some participants in each study were identified as poor or low income to varying degrees and in differing concentrations, although one study was unclear about how participant poverty was identified and to what extent it was represented in the sample. SES was determined by either free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility, attendance in income-based requirement programs such as Head Start, families living at or below the FPT, and proxies for poverty were used, such as Title I status, household income, and parent employment status.

Each of the 19 studies were coded into at least one of following overlapping categories or themes (see Supplementary Material): grade levels from PK through beyond 3rd grade; students living in poverty or attending high-poverty schools; poverty-related risk factors in early childhood; EF; SR; social-emotional skills or prosocial behaviors; social-emotional learning (SEL); instructional strategies, interventions, or behaviors; parenting strategies or behaviors; school readiness or readiness for learning; and academic achievement. These classifications are not mutually exclusive, as one study may fall into multiple categories, and so the total below will be greater than the 19 total publications. More than 50% (or ≥ 10 of the 19) of the articles focused on PK students (n = 11) and K students (n = 12), students living in poverty (n = 16), and the related contextual risk factors (n = 12), social-emotional skills or prosocial behaviors (n = 13), and school readiness (n = 13) or academic achievement (n = 10). Parenting strategies were discussed in eight of the 19 articles. The remaining codes (1st grade, n = 6; 2nd grade, n = 2; 3rd grade, n = 4; beyond 3rd grade, n = 3; EF, n = 6; SR, n = 6; SEL, n = 6; and instructional strategies, interventions, or behaviors, n = 4) were present in fewer than 33% (≤ 6) of the articles. Despite using search limiters that defined early elementary or public elementary primary grades as K-2, 5 studies included students in 3rd grade or beyond, and 11 studies included PK. Only 12 studies included students in K-2; of these, the majority of kindergarten studies used extant data, such as the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.

Using a constant comparative method (Kolb, 2012), three emerging themes in the 19 articles were categorized in nonmutually exclusive classifications: (1) identifying poverty-related risks for chil- dren’s learning and academic progress (n = 12); (2) empirically exploring the relationship between poverty, SR/EF, and learning (n = 18); and (3) exposing evidence-based interventions to ameliorate the effects of poverty (n = 5).

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 349

Identifying poverty-related risks for children’s learning, explored in 12 studies, included common factors of single-parent households, parental education levels less than high school completion, young maternal age at child’s birth, large crowded households, household chaos, family mobility, harsh or inconsistent parenting, changes in family configuration or adult caregivers, caregiver depression, stressful life events, and neighborhood risks. These factors were articulated and repeated across eight studies, and clear correlations between the instability represented by these risk factors and students’ achievement in school were found. Working with families to either decrease the risk factors or minimize the stress produced by these situational factors (i.e., by increasing education levels, by treating depression, by teaching positive home routines) could potentially reduce chaos and stress, thereby improving educational outcomes for all children.

Also, eight studies empirically explored the relationships between poverty, SR/EF, and learning or academic achievement. Parental behaviors such as decreased school involvement and increased harsh parenting contribute to chronic or toxic stress and are not conducive for children’s cognitive and socioemotional growth. This environment exacerbates the delayed development of EF and SR, increases cognitive and affective dysregulation as well as aggressive behaviors, and moderates prosocial behaviors. Children from low-income homes often demonstrate reduced receptive and productive language abilities, diminished early literacy and foundational math skills, decreased willingness to attend and persist with academically challenging tasks, and less positivity to structured learning. Because of these challenges, students from low-income and poor environments often experience decreased school readiness and classroom adjustment and engage in fewer behaviors conducive to learning and academic achievement, which can be predictive of future learning difficulties in reading and math (Morgan et al., 2017) and often contribute to even further achieve- ment gaps because of disciplinary removal from learning experiences in the classroom (Bowman- Perrott et al., 2013; Brown & Steele, 2015; Burke, Oats, Ringle, Fichtner, & DelGaudio, 2011; McLear, Trentacosta, & Smith-Darden, 2016; Morgan et al., 2017; Skiba et al., 2011). Although these associations seem intuitive and logical to many educators, a need remains for evidence-based interventions to support parents, children, and educators with these challenges.

The final classification illuminates the salient need for exposing evidence-based interventions. All of these 19 studies were classified as longitudinal and/or extant data studies (n = 11) or as either experimental or quasi-experimental studies (n = 8), but only five of the eight could be classified as experimental intervention studies. Given this extremely small set of studies, of all classifications, we determined to include the studies with PK participants, as the interventions and findings have the potential to help illuminate ways educators can better support young children as they build SR/EF, SES, and academic outcomes in spite of the moderating challenges of low socioeconomic or poor environments. Additionally, many elementary schools include PK classrooms, further supporting the inclusion of these studies in this manuscript. This dearth, however, does further illustrate the need for more experimental research in this area.

RQ2: Of the studies revealed through this systematic literature review, what methodologies, research designs, and themes of findings can be synthesized?

Below is a synthesis of the 19 studies, organized by methodology. In hopes of advancing this important field of study, the research design and themes of the findings are also discussed below (see Supplementary Material).

Longitudinal and extant data analysis (n = 11) A bulk of the studies in this literature review accessed longitudinal, extant data sets (see summaries in Table 1). Studies utilizing this type of data have the advantage of collecting repeated observations of the same variables with a group of individuals over time (Nese, Lai, & Anderson, 2013). The researchers involved in these studies (Berry & O’Connor, 2010; Chien & Mistry, 2013; Friedman-Krauss & Raver, 2015; Hendricker & Reinke, 2017; Hoglund, Klingle, &

350 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

Ta b le

1. Th e lo n g it ud

in al an d ex ta n t d at a st ud

ie s in

ch ro n ol og

ic al

or d er .

A ut h or (s ), Pu b lic at io n

D at e

Sa m p le

Si ze , G ra d e

Le ve l

Re se ar ch

D es ig n

D at a Se t

Be rr y & O ’C on

n or ,

20 10

1, 16 8,

PK -3 +

Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● N at io n al In st it ut e of

C h ild

H ea lt h an d H um

an D ev el op

m en t (N IC H D ) St ud

y of

Ea rl y C h ild

C ar e an d Yo ut h

D ev el op

m en t (S EC C YD

) C h ie n & M is tr y, 20 13

17 ,5 65 , K & 1

Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Ea rl y C h ild h oo d Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y – Ki n d er g ar te n C oh

or t (E C LS -K )

Ro y & Ra ve r, 20 14

60 2,

PK Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● C h ic ag o Sc h oo l Re ad in es s Pr oj ec t

Fr ie d m an -K ra us s &

Ra ve r, 20 15

38 1,

PK Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● C h ic ag o Sc h oo l Re ad in es s Pr oj ec t

H og

lu n d et

al ., 20 15

46 1,

K Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Ea rl y C h ild h oo d Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y – Ki n d er g ar te n C oh

or t (E C LS -K )

Ra zz a et

al ., 20 15

66 9,

K Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Fr ag ile

Fa m ili es

an d C h ild

W el lb ei n g St ud

y Su b se t In -H om

e Lo n g it ud

in al St ud

y of

Pr es ch oo l A g ed

C h ild re n

M cL ea r et

al ., 20 16

10 6,

K Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y ● N /A

Ra zz a et

al ., 20 16

66 9,

K Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Fr ag ile

Fa m ili es

an d C h ild

W el lb ei n g St ud

y Su b se t In -H om

e Lo n g it ud

in al St ud

y of

Pr es ch oo l A g ed

C h ild re n .

V er n on

-F ea g an s

et al ., 20 16

1, 14 5,

PK & K

Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Th e Fa m ily

Li fe

Pr oj ec t (F LP )

H en d ri ck er

& Re in ke ,

20 17

5, 43 1,

K Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Ea rl y C h ild h oo d Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y – Ki n d er g ar te n C oh

or t (E C LS -K )

M or g an

et al ., 20 17

18 ,0 80 , K & 1

Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y an d Ex ta n t D at a

A n al ys is

● Ea rl y C h ild h oo d Lo n g it ud

in al

St ud

y – Ki n d er g ar te n C oh

or t (E C LS -K )

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 351

Hosan, 2015; McLear et al., 2016; Morgan et al., 2017; Razza, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2015, 2016; Roy & Raver, 2014; Vernon-Feagans, Willoughby, & Garrett-Peters, & The Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2016) were able to use robust statistical tests to explore differences and correlations among large groups of children (n = 381 to 18,080). The challenge is that correla- tion does not equal causation, and because the designs were not experimental, these studies cannot inform readers about interventions. They do, however, shed additional light on two of the above identified themes: (1) identifying poverty-related risks for children’s learning, and (2) empirically exploring the relationship between poverty, SR/EF, and learning. Even with descrip- tive, comparison, or correlational data alone, this body of literature outlines very strong and significant relationships between learning or academic achievement, self-regulation or executive function, poverty, and education. In short, these studies support the opening claim of this article: Poverty poses a significant risk to children’s well-being, explains much of the school readiness and achievement gaps, and is directly related to children’s behaviors, approaches to learning, and familial conditions that make success in the structured school environment difficult.

Experimental and quasi-experimental studies (n = 8) Of the studies analyzed for this article, eight were experimental or quasi-experimental (Table 2); within this body of eight, five tested the effects of an intervention on children’s SR/EF and academic outcomes. Therefore, these five studies are the focus of much of the remaining results and discussion section (Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008; Blair & Raver, 2014; Brotman et al., 2013; Dawson-McClure et al., 2014; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). They represent vanguard experiments beginning with preschool families, preschool students, and then K-2 students that may, with further replication and validation, lead early childhood policymakers to actionable data and research-based strategies to improve academic performance. It is with this potential in mind that we intentionally included all five experimental studies, even though not all strictly met the K-2 portion of the systematic literature review search criteria.

Table 2. The experimental and quasi-experimental studies in chronological order.

Author(s), Publication Date Sample Size Grade Level Research Design Independent Variable

Bierman et al., 2008 356, PK Experimental (Stratified Groups Randomly Assigned to Intervention or Control Conditions at Centers)

● Head Start REDI and Preschool PATHS

Webster-Stratton et al., 2008 120, PK & K Experimental (Cluster Randomized Control Trial in Matched Classroom Pairs)

● Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programs

Rinaldi et al., 2009 37, PK Quasi-Experimental ● Diagnosis of Emotional Disability or Language Disability per IDEA

Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2011 256, PK Quasi-Experimental (Stratified Random Sample)

● N/A

Brotman et al., 2013 1,050, PK & K Experimental (Cluster Randomized Control Trial in Classroom Pairs)

● ParentCorps

Blair & Raver, 2014 759, K Experimental (Cluster Randomized Control Trial in Classroom Pairs)

● Tools of the Mind, Kindergarten

Dawson-McClure et al., 2014 1,050, PK Experimental (Cluster Randomized Control Trial in Classroom Pairs)

● ParentCorps

Denham et al., 2015 293, PK Quasi-experimental ● Mother’s Education (Low, High)

352 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

RQ3: Based on the systematic literature review results, how did the experimental studies that tested an intervention improve SR/EF for young children living in poverty?

As stated earlier, only five of the 19 studies explored the effects of a specific intervention on a sample population. Of these, two studies focused on family-based interventions, one on preschool curricular interventions and two on elementary curricular interventions. The small body of empirical research studies revealed by this systematic literature search affords the opportunity to detail the purposes, methodologies, and results below. As a means of organizing this section of results, three groups are utilized: family, PK, and K-2 participants.

Family-based intervention: ParentCorps parent-based training Two studies (Brotman et al., 2013; Dawson-McClure et al., 2014) analyzed the effects of ParentCorps, a universal parent-based training intervention on parenting and on children’s PK conduct and K academic achievement. These articles report on the same cluster, randomized control trial in classroom pairs study during different phases of implementation with a total sample size of 1,050 prekindergarten children and their parents.

Purposes. The Brotman study (2013) and Dawson-McClure study (2014) investigated the effects of a universal intervention parent education program that builds skills in SR to ameliorate the impact of disadvantage on achievement based on the absence of current early childhood family interventions for SR and learning improvement. ParentCorps (Mihalic, 2016b) promotes child SR and early learning by increasing parent involvement in education, effective behavior management, and positive behavior support for parents and teachers, which indirectly may improve SR and EF in young children.

Methodologies. These studies were conducted in two highly disadvantaged New York City school districts using a cluster (school) randomized controlled trial with assessments from PK entry to the end of K, though the Dawson-McClure study (2014) focused more on PK effects with parents and children and the Brotman study (2013) included an analysis of the longevity of effects into K. Measures included the Speed Diagnostic Indicators for the Assessment of Learning at the beginning of PK, the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement Brief Form (2nd edition) at the end of K, the Involve Interview, a Parent Perceptions of Parent Efficacy (PPPE) survey, the Effective Practices Test (EPT) for parents, the Parenting Practices Interview (PPI), and the New York Rating Scale (NYRS).

Results. Brotman et al. (2013) found significantly higher kindergarten achievement scores and teacher-rated academic performance as well as higher trajectories of performance ratings with children in ParentCorp schools relative to children in control schools. Dawson-McClure et al. (2014) found positive effects on parenting knowledge, behavior support, and teacher-related parent involvement. Both studies suggest that the implementation of a universal family-centered interven- tion has the potential to advance academic achievement for children living in poverty or from disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. Associated costs may be prohibitive (see Supplementary Material). Practitioners may be interested in implementing, and researchers should replicate this study in an effort to increase external validity.

Preschool/prekindergarten interventions: Head Start REDI and Preschool PATHS curricular interventions Only one study focused on Pre-K participants (Bierman et al., 2008) and explored the effects of a combined curricular intervention approach using the Head Start REDI and Preschool PATHS curricular interventions. The experiment studied 356 children in a randomized-controlled trial at Head Start centers with later kindergarten adjustment and future achievement in mind.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 353

Purpose. Bierman et al. (2008) focused on the mediating or moderating effects of EF intervention in preschool-age children as it relates to school readiness and the acquisition of key emergent literacy and language skills. The EF intervention focused increased capacity for SR, emotional awareness, and social problem solving within a framework of school readiness intervention programs with socio- economically disadvantaged 4-year-olds. The dominant objective of the study, then, was to deter- mine if the REDI intervention positively impacted EF skills; if so, these changes mediated intervention effects on other language, literacy, and socioemotional outcomes.

Method. The researchers used a stratified randomization process to divide classrooms into groups based on population demographic characteristics, location, and type of school day; these stratified groups were then divided into Head Start centers randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions. Intervention conditions were Head Start REDI classrooms using an enrichment program woven into the existing High Scope or Creative Curriculum instruction along with the Preschool PATHS Curriculum; all instruction targeting language and emergent literacy skills components, with usual practice conditions as the existing curriculum. Measures included pre- and post-EF perfor- mance tasks, the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, the Blending and Elision Scales of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy, and the Print Knowledge Scale of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy, observation of small-group play using a variety of scales, the Social Competence Scale, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation – Revised and the Preschool Social Behavior Scale.

Results. Bierman et al. (2008) concluded that EF skills assessed at the beginning of the pre- kindergarten year are important predictors of acquiring language and emergent literacy skills, prosocial behaviors, and aggression control. These findings suggest that early intervention helps young children compensate for EF delays associated with poverty. This Head Start study (Bierman et al., 2008) provides data that seem to correlate an increase in EF with academic performance in children after participating in the Head Start REDI intervention, a High Scope or Creative Curriculum instructional approach combined with the Preschool PATHS social-emo- tional curriculum. Additional research is warranted to increase external validity, perhaps replica- tion in a variety of settings.

K-2 interventions: Incredible Years Head Start, kindergarten, and 1st grade, and Tools of the Mind kindergarten curricular interventions The first of the remaining two studies investigated the effects of the Incredible Years (IY) curricular intervention in Head Start, kindergarten, and 1st grade (Webster-Stratton et al., 2008). The other explored the impacts of the Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007) kindergarten curricular intervention (Blair & Raver, 2014). Both studies used experimental, randomized control trials as their experimental design and will be described individually below in chronological order as they explored two different interventions. A synthesis of both elementary-based studies follows the Blair and Raver (2014) summary.

Purpose. Webster-Stratton et al. (2008) conceptualize school readiness as the combination of emotional SR, social competence, and family–school involvement along with the absence of conduct problems. Because poverty-related risk factors increase children’s likelihood of conduct problems and diminished school readiness attributes, the intervention studied is intended to increase social- emotional skills through curriculum, improve effective classroom management, and increase parent– school involvement. The researchers hypothesized that increasing school readiness would also increase children’s academic and behavioral outcomes at school.

Method. Head Start and K students were assigned to either treatment or control groups in matched pairs using a nested hierarchy. In the intervention schools, all Head Start, kindergarten, and 1st-grade children received the IY Dinosaur School SEL and problem-solving curriculum. Children in the control condition

354 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

received business-as-usual curricula and instruction. Measures included pre- and posttests and observa- tions of social-emotional competencies, student conduct problems, teacher competencies, teacher efforts to involve parents, and classroom environments using the Multiple Option Observation System for Experimental Studies (MOOSES), the Wally Problem-Solving Test (WPST), and the Wally Feelings Test (WFT), the Coder Observation of Adaptation-Revised (COCA-R), the Classroom Atmosphere Measure (CAS), the Teacher Coder Impressions Inventory (TCI), and the Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Results. Students in the intervention group also displayed more prosocial behaviors and increased positive feeling vocabulary than their peers in the control group, and teachers in the intervention group showed significant improvements in classroom management style. Intervention teachers used more specific instructional strategies to address social-emotional skills and used significantly fewer critical statements than control teachers. The findings suggest interventions in SEL can help bolster this plastic and flexible stage of development, thus improving school readiness and academic achievement. This approach, while focused more on SEL and SR, is similar to that employed by Blair and Raver (2014) in the following study.

Purpose. Blair and Raver’s (2014) research is based on the hypothesis that risk factors from poverty contribute to impaired SR development causing gaps in academic abilities and school readiness and parallels Bierman et al.’s (2008) position on this nascent and underrepresented field showing correlations between EF with young children living in poverty. Additionally, the predictive ability between EF and academic achievement is stronger, even, than IQ or socioeconomic status (a claim also supported by Zelazo, 2015). According to the researchers, no other studies have been done to examine the neurobiol- ogy of SR and the design implications of educational experiences for children. Blair and Raver (2014) studied kindergartners to determine if building SR and EF skills using the kindergarten version of the Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007) curriculum would particularly benefit children attending high-poverty schools who are less prepared for the cognitive and affective school demands.

Method. This cluster randomized (schools) controlled trial included 29 schools in 12 districts blocked by district, school size, state test scores, the number of kindergarten classrooms, and the percentage of FRL recipients as a federal indicator of school poverty. The typical configuration, with one exception, was to involve two classrooms per school with 79 kindergarten classrooms in the trial (42 treatment and 37 control). Measures included pre- and posttests in K and follow-up tests in 1st grade using saliva samples, the Applied Problems and Letter-Word subtests of the Woodcock- Johnson III Tests of Achievement, the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices test, measures of EF abilities, and a reaction time task and rapid automatized naming task.

Results. Findings indicate positive effects on EF, reasoning, attention control, and stress levels. There were also improvements in reading, vocabulary, and math at the end of K that persisted into 1st grade. Many of the effects were specific to high-poverty schools, suggesting interventions that focus on SR/EF could help close the poverty-related achievement or opportunity gaps. Prior studies on the PK version of intervention showed no effect, and Blair and Raver (2014) concluded that K is an optimal implementation window to improve SR for this intervention. Replicating this study in a variety of settings will increase external validity. To do so, however, schools or districts not only will need to purchase the required training and materials (see Appendix F), but also may face district pressure as the intervention’s Vygotskian approach is not aligned to typical district responses to high-stakes testing and accountability.

Synthesis of the studies Study participants in the five experimental studies identified from RQ2 were children and/or families living in low-income to high-poverty households. These five experimental studies identified

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 355

Ta b le

3. O p p or tu n it y- or ie n te d as p ec ts

of th e st ud

ie d in te rv en ti on

s fo r ch ild re n ’s d ev el op

m en ta l su p p or t.

St ud

y In te rv en ti on

Sp ec ifi c G oa ls of

th e In te rv en ti on

Sp ec ifi c A ct iv it ie s of

th e In te rv en ti on

D ev el op

m en ta l Su p p or t

Br ot m an

et al ., 20 13

Pa re n tC or p s

● C ul tu ra lly -i n fo rm

ed p os it iv e b eh av io r su p p or t

● Su p p or ti n g p ar en ts

th ro ug

h ro le

p la ys , p ro b le m

so lv in g

sc en ar io s, d is cu ss io n s ab ou

t Pa re n tC or p s vi d eo s fo r h om

e us e

● C h ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n

sk ill s

● Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n th ro ug

h te ac h er

us e of

p up

p et s, p la y,

p os it iv e b eh av io r (e .g ., st ic ke r ch ar ts ,t im e ou

t) su p p or t, an d a

sy st em

at ic ap p ro ac h to

b eh av io r m an ag em

en t in

th e

cl as sr oo m

D aw

so n -M

cC lu re

et al ., 20 14

Pa re n tC or p s

● Su p p or ti n g p ar en ts

in th re e cr it ic al d om

ai n s (p os it iv e b eh av io r su p p or t,

b eh av io r m an ag em

en t, in vo lv em

en t in

ea rl y le ar n in g )

Su p p or ti n g p ar en ts

in th e d ev el op

m en t of :

● Es ta b lis h in g d ai ly ro ut in es

at h om

e ● Es ta b lis h in g p os it iv e p ar en t- ch ild

in te ra ct io n s d ur in g

n on

d ir ec ti ve

p la y

● Sh ar in g b oo ks

● Pr ac ti ci n g p os it iv e re in fo rc em

en t of

d es ir ab le

ch ild

b eh av io rs

● U si n g p ro ac ti ve

st ra te g ie s to

m an ag e ch ild

b eh av io r (e .g .,

st ic ke r ch ar ts , ti m e ou

t) ● Se le ct iv el y ig n or in g m ild

m is b eh av io r

● Es ta b lis h in g co n se q ue n ce s fo r se ri ou

s m is b eh av io r

● Pa re n t se lf- ca re

st ra te g ie s

● C h ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n

sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al

sk ill s

Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n in

th e d ev el op

m en t of :

● U si n g p up

p et s, p la y, an d p os it iv e b eh av io r su p p or t (p ra ct ic in g

sh ar in g , p ay in g at te n ti on

, id en ti fy in g fe el in g s)

Bi er m an

et al ., 20 08

H ea d St ar t

RE D I an d

Pr es ch oo l

PA TH

S

● Im p ro vi n g ch ild re n ’s fo un

d at io n al lit er ac y, so ci al -e m ot io n al , an d ex ec ut iv e

fu n ct io n d ev el op

m en t fo r im p ro ve d ou

tc om

es at

sc h oo l

Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n ’s la n g ua g e an d em

er g en t lit er ac y

d ev el op

m en t (v oc ab ul ar y, sy n ta x, p h on

ol og

ic al

se n si ti vi ty , an d

p ri n t kn ow

le d g e)

us in g :

● In te ra ct iv e st or y- te lli n g

● Ta rg et ed

vo ca b ul ar y in st ru ct io n us in g p ro p s

● St or y re te lli n g

● So un

d g am

es ● Le tt er

le ar n in g g am

es

● C h ild re n ’s la n g ua g e an d

em er g en t lit er ac y sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s ex ec ut iv e

fu n ct io n sk ill s

Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al

sk ill d ev el op

m en t

(p ro so ci al

fr ie n d sh ip

sk ill s, em

ot io n al un

d er st an d in g an d

em ot io n al

ex p re ss io n sk ill s, se lf- co n tr ol , an d so ci al p ro b le m -

so lv in g sk ill s) us in g :

● M od

el in g st or ie s

● Pu p p et

ch ar ac te rs

● Ph

ot og

ra p h s

● Ro le

p la ys

● C oo p er at iv e p ro je ct s an d g am

es ● Pa re n t m at er ia ls to

su p p or t le ar n in g at

h om

e

● C h ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al

sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s ex ec ut iv e

fu n ct io n sk ill s

(C on ti nu ed

)

356 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

Ta b le

3. (C on

ti n ue d ).

St ud

y In te rv en ti on

Sp ec ifi c G oa ls of

th e In te rv en ti on

Sp ec ifi c A ct iv it ie s of

th e In te rv en ti on

D ev el op

m en ta l Su p p or t

W eb st er -S tr at to n et

al ., 20 08

In cr ed ib le

Ye ar s (IY )

● U si n g p os it iv e cl as sr oo m

b eh av io r st ra te g ie s to

g en er at e m or e p os it iv e an d

re sp on

si ve

te ac h in g an d le ss

h ar sh

or cr it ic al d is ci p lin e, in cr ea se

fo cu s on

so ci al

an d em

ot io n al te ac h in g ,a n d in cr ea se

fo cu s on

p ar en t in vo lv em

en t in ch ild re n ’s

ed uc at io n to

in cr ea se

sc h oo l re ad in es s an d re d uc e cl as sr oo m

b eh av io r

p ro b le m s

Su p p or ti n g cl as sr oo m

te ac h er s th ro ug

h tr ai n in g in :

● C la ss ro om

m an ag em

en t st ra te g ie s

● Su p p or t d ev el op

in g p os it iv e re la ti on

sh ip s w it h ch ild re n an d

fa m ili es

● Pr oa ct iv e in st ru ct io n al

ap p ro ac h es

● U si n g in ce n ti ve

p ro g ra m s to

im p ro ve

ch ild re n ’s p ro so ci al sk ill s

● Ef fe ct iv el y m an ag in g p ro b le m

b eh av io rs

● Pr om

ot in g ch ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n th ro ug

h p er si st en ce ,

em ot io n , an d p ro b le m -s ol vi n g co ac h in g

● Su p p or ti n g an d p ro m ot in g p ro so ci al

b eh av io r p ee r co ac h in g

● Pa re n t b eh av io r p la n an d cl as sr oo m

le ar n in g in vo lv em

en t

st ra te g ie s

● C h ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al

sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n

sk ill s

Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al sk ill d ev el op

m en t (s oc ia l

co m p et en ce , em

ot io n al se lf- re g ul at io n , an d sc h oo l b eh av io r)

us in g 30

le ss on

s d iv id ed

in to

7 un

it s:

● La rg e- g ro up

ci rc le

ti m e ac ti vi ti es

● Sm

al l- g ro up

sk ill p ra ct ic e ac ti vi ti es

● V id eo ta p ed

m od

el s of

ch ild re n us in g p ro so ci al

sk ill s

● Li fe -s iz e p up

p et s

● H om

ew or k ac ti vi ti es

● Pi ct ur e cu e ca rd s

● G am

es fo r sk ill b ui ld in g

Bl ai r & Ra ve r, 20 14

To ol s of

th e

M in d

● To

re d uc e ea rl y p ov er ty -r el at ed

ac ad em

ic d is ad va n ta g e th ro ug

h th e us e of

a cu rr ic ul um

th at

fo cu se s on

se lf- re g ul at io n in

co m b in at io n w it h ac ad em

ic d ev el op

m en t

Su p p or ti n g ch ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n sk ill s (w h ic h in cl ud

e ex ec ut iv e fu n ct io n sk ill s an d so ci al -e m ot io n al

re g ul at io n sk ill s)

th ro ug

h th e d ev el op

m en t of

fo un

d at io n al lit er ac y sk ill s b y:

● In te n ti on

al m ak e- b el ie ve

p la y (p la n n ed

in ad va n ce , us e of

ro le s, us e of

sy m b ol ic p ro p s, us e of

ro le

sp ee ch ) ti ed

to d ra m at iz at io n of

st or ie s an d lit er at ur e to

d ev el op

la n g ua g e, te xt

co m p re h en si on

, vo ca b ul ar y, an d cr ea ti vi ty

● Pe er

in te ra ct io n s an d te ac h er

sc af fo ld in g to

g ro w

re fle ct iv e,

h ig h er

le ve lt h in ki n g ,p ro so ci al sk ill s, an d p os it iv e ap p ro ac h es

to le ar n in g w it h in

le ar n in g ac ti vi ti es

an d g am

es in

p ai rs of

sm al l

g ro up

s ● Su p p or ti n g th e d ev el op

m en t of

ch ild re n ’s ef fic ac y an d

in d ep en d en ce

th ro ug

h ch ild -d ir ec te d le ar n in g p la n s an d

co n fe re n ce s

● C h ild re n ’s se lf- re g ul at io n

sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s ex ec ut iv e

fu n ct io n sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s so ci al -e m ot io n al

sk ill s

● C h ild re n ’s la n g ua g e an d

em er g en t lit er ac y sk ill s

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 357

interventions that specifically mediated the effects of poverty on young children’s learning, school readiness, and academic achievement. Each experimental study focused on studying the impact of interventions targeted toward increasing EF and SR in young children, either directly via classroom interventions or through enhanced parenting techniques, in an effort to increase school readiness and improve academic achievement. This information can be used to find or create interventions that combine EF, SR, and social-emotional development in combination with high-quality pedago- gical and instructional approaches to teaching foundational literacy and numeracy skills. Given the strong alignment to the research questions for this literature review and similarities of the five empirical studies, pursuing interventions that directly seek to improve SR and EF behaviors and skills in young children may improve readiness for school and academic success in school.

There is potential risk to adopt a deficit-oriented approach whenever we can identify particular threats to children’s positive outcomes, but we would strongly caution educational practitioners, leaders, researchers, and policymakers against this tendency. Understanding the impact of these factors allows us to begin to explore ways to protect children and support their growth. The positive outcomes for children related to the interventions in the five experimental studies indicate we are beginning to apply our understanding of what SR/EF are and how important they are to children’s success in school to instructional approaches that can mitigate or ameliorate poverty-related threats. Table 3 (above) highlights a breakdown of the specific goals and activities of each intervention and the related supports the findings suggest they provided students.

Conclusion

By identifying these empirical, peer-reviewed, research publications with K-2 learners at the nexus of a search on poverty and education, SR and EF, and learning or academic achievement, early childhood education (ECE) educators, practitioners, and policymakers should note that each study either indirectly or directly verifies the importance of each of these things:

● High-quality, developmentally appropriate and research-based ECE instructional approaches ● The moderating impact poverty has on young children’s developmental outcomes ● The significant and growing understanding of how SR and EF are related to both and influence

educational outcomes.

Each experimental study also indicates this line of research as nascent in its scope and under- represented in the research literature. Despite SR and EF being part of the education discourse for the past 15 years, a critical gap remains between neuroscientific research findings and actionable, research-based education practice. The existing evidence-based instructional practices that impacted academic performance for K-2 children living in poverty or low-SES households was contained in these five studies, but each of the 19 studies explores the relationships between poverty, SR and EF, and educational outcomes. Notably, the small amount of related research found through this systematic literature review supports the conclusion that more work remains to be done.

All 19 studies, the 11 longitudinal and extant studies as well as the eight experimental and quasi- experimental studies, concentrated either predominantly or exclusively on participants living in low- income to high-poverty households. All articles found strong relationships between poverty, SR/EF abilities, and cognitive and social-emotional skills and behaviors necessary for success in school. These articles shed additional light on the possible roots that contribute to a persistent and pervasive achievement gap as well as suggest the direction for future experimental studies to explore effective interventions to mitigate or moderate these risk factors for young children and their families. Therefore, it does not appear hyperbolic to postulate that poverty poses the single greatest threat to children’s well-being and educational equity, especially early on.

What is exciting, however, is the potential each of these empirical studies has to influence educators’ understanding of brain development, neuroplasticity, and instructional approaches that can better

358 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

support at-opportunity students and more appropriately identify interventions to mitigate and protect against poverty-related learning challenges (Blair & Raver, 2015; Zelazo, 2015; Zelazo et al., 2016).

There is … evidence, however, that good EF skills can protect against the risk of academic failure associated with poverty and adversity. Efforts targeting the improvement of EF skills in children from disadvantaged environments may lead to beneficial changes in many domains of activity, including social relationships and these may lead, in turn, to further improvement in EF skill. (Zelazo et al., 2016, p. 73)

These protective interactions in the interventions helped to mitigate the existing risk factors present in the study populations.

Future research

All eight experimental studies, particularly the five focused on classroom interventions, show promising outcomes. Data from this literature review suggest a correlation between targeted SR and EF interventions with low-stress, contextually appropriate classroom environments, and strate- gic content-based instruction to increased school readiness behaviors and academic outcomes. Future research might include replicating studies, such as using the same interventions with children in different demographic settings or with increased sample sizes for broader generalization. Extending the current study to other primary elementary grades will explore the robustness of this study’s initial findings or the potential duration of effects.

Final thoughts

An American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference paper and forthcoming pub- lication aligned to this systematic literature search (Morgan et al., 2018) puts a point on the idea that gaps in children’s SR/EF, whether poverty induced or not, negatively affect their learning and academic achievement well into students’ K-12 education. Although forthcoming, this study of 8,330 children in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 2010–11 Cohort, found EF deficits predict kindergartners’ risk of experiencing repeated academic difficulties through 3rd grade. Morgan et al. (2018) studied EF, specifically cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control. Kindergarten children with EF challenges, especially in working memory, were 10 times as likely to experience repeated academic difficulty in math, three times as likely to experience the same in reading, and twice as likely to experience difficulty in science than their peers without working memory deficits. Children with deficits in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control were also at risk of failure.

These findings reinforce prior research indicating that an academic gap at the beginning of elementary school frequently widens throughout K-12 for many children who begin school already disadvantaged.

Educational disadvantages associated with poverty are present prior to kindergarten. By improving children’s skills at the outset of their educational careers, our findings suggest that effective child-directed educational approaches … can perhaps go a long way toward fulfilling the promise of free and universal public education by equalizing opportunity for children to succeed despite initial disadvantage. By working to level the playing field for children at school entry, effective kindergarten education can be expected to lead to reduced social and economic burden associated with poverty. (Blair & Raver, 2014, p. 11)

This literature review reinforces the need and enormous potential to implement DAP approaches in K-2 (and beyond) to build foundational concept knowledge and skills while also focusing on language development, SEL, and SR/EF. Roughly one half the students in many schools and the majority in others with these poverty-related challenges need effective approaches and support to grow in all of these areas. Policymakers and practitioners alike would do well to critically support and apply research aligned with the three themes represented in this study: (1) identifying poverty- related risks for children’s learning; (2) empirically exploring the relationship between poverty, SR/ EF, and learning; and (3) evidence-based interventions. Using interventions or instructional

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 359

techniques that support SR and EF through SEL and content-based instruction can potentially reduce the amount of conduct-related disruptions in a classroom and the amount of missed instruction because of exclusionary discipline and lack of connection to school, and can increase academic and developmental outcomes for these students. This educational mandate cannot be ignored.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Karyn A. Allee-Herndon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-4792 Sherron Killingsworth Roberts http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-4333

References

Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher-child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.001

Bierman, K. L., Mathis, E. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2018). Serving the needs of young children with social, emotional, and behavioral needs: A commentary. School Mental Health, 10, 254–263.

Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the head start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20(2008), 821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394

Blair, C. (2016). Executive function and early childhood education. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 102– 107. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.05.009

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendo- crine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112393. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112393

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 711–731. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). London, England: Pearson.

Bowman-Perrott, L., Benz, M. R., Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O. M., Eisterhold, L. A., & Zhang, D. (2013). Patterns and predictors of disciplinary exclusion over time: An analysis of the SEELS national data set. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 83–96. doi:10.1177/1063426611407501

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2), 55–71. Brotman, L. M., Dawson-McClure, S., Calzada, E. J., Huang, K. Y., Kamboukos, D., Palamar, J. J., & Petkova, E. (2013).

Cluster (school) RCT of parentcorps: Impact on kindergarten academic achievement. Pediatrics, 131(5), e1521– e1529. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2632

Brown, E. D., & Low, C. M. (2008). Chaotic living conditions and sleep problems associated with children’s responses to academic challenge. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(6), 920–923. doi:10.1037/a0013652

Brown, K. E., & Steele, A. S. L. (2015). Racial discipline disproportionality in Montessori and traditional public schools: A comparative study using the relative rate index. Journal of Montessori Research, 1, 14. doi:10.17161/jomr.v1i1.4941

Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Fernandez, V., Dominguez, X., & Rouse, H. L. (2011). Behavior problems in learning activities and social interactions in head start classrooms and early reading, mathematics, and approaches to learning. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 39–56.

Burke, R. V., Oats, R. G., Ringle, J. L., Fichtner, L. O., & DelGaudio, M. B. (2011). Implementation of a classroom management program with urban elementary schools in low-income neighborhoods: Does program fidelity affect student behavior and academic outcomes? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 16, 201–218. doi:10.1080/10824669.2011.585944

Chen, W., & Corak, M. (2008). Child poverty and changes in child poverty. Demography, 45(3), 537–553. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831388/

Chien, N. C., & Mistry, R. S. (2013). Geographic variations in cost of living: Associations with family and child well- being. Child Development, 84(1), 209–225. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01846.x

Child Trends Data Bank. (2016). Children in poverty: Indicators of child and youth well-being. Retrieved from https:// www.childtrends.org/indicators/children-in-poverty/Classroom

360 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Copple, C., Daniel, J., & Tomlinson, H. B. (2007). Revisiting the NAEYC position statement on developmentally appropriate practice: Update. Young Children, 62(4), 74.

Dawson-McClure, S., Calzada, E., Huang, K. Y., Kamboukos, D., Rhule, D., Kolawole, B., … Brotman, L. M. (2014). A population-level approach to promoting healthy child development and school success in low-income, urban neighborhoods: Impact on parenting and child conduct problems. Prevention Science, 16(2), 279–290. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0473-3

Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Brown, C., Way, E., & Steed, J. (2015). “I know how you feel”: Preschoolers’ emotion knowledge contributes to early school success. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(3), 252–262. doi:10.1177/ 1476718X13497354

Dinosaur curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.incredibleyears.com/programs/child/classroom-curriculum/ Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life

chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63(3), 406–423. doi:10.2307/2657556 Engle, P., & Black, M. (2008). The effect of poverty on child development and educational outcomes. Annals of the

New York Academy of Science, 1136, 243–256. doi:10.1196/annals.1425.023 Fitzpatrick, C., McKinnon, R. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2014). Do preschool executive function skills

explain the school readiness gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children? Learning and Instruction, 30, 25– 31. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.003

Friedman-Krauss, A. H., & Raver, C. C. (2015). Does school mobility place elementary school children at risk for lower math achievement? The mediating role of cognitive dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1725–1739. doi:10.1037/a0039795

Hendricker, E., & Reinke, W. M. (2017). Conceptualizing family risk in a racially/ethnically diverse, low-income kindergarten population. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(2), 125–139. doi:10.1007/s40688-017-0128-z

Hoglund, W. L., Klingle, K. E., & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 337–357. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.06.002

Jones, S. M., Bailey, R., Barnes, S. P., & Partee, A. (2016). Executive function mapping project executive summary: Untangling the terms and skills related to executive function and self-regulation in early childhood (OPRE Report # 2016-88). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018a). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 9 years, 2016. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018b). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 18 years, 2016. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83–86.

Lowrey, A. (2017, October 05). America’s child-poverty rate has hit a record low. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https:// www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/child-poverty-rate-record-low/542058/

McLear, C., Trentacosta, C. J., & Smith-Darden, J. (2016). Child self-regulation, parental secure base scripts, and at- risk kindergartners’ academic achievement. Early Education and Development, 27(4), 440–456. doi:10.1080/ 10409289.2016.1091972

Mihalic, S. (2016a). Head start REDI. Retrieved from http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/program-costs/head- start-redi

Mihalic, S. (2016b). ParentCorps. Retrieved from http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/program-costs/parentcorps Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M., Oh, Y., & Maczuga, S. (2018, April). Executive function deficits in

kindergarten predict repeated academic difficulties across elementary school. Paper presented at 2018 AERA Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

Morgan, P. L., Li, H., Farkas, G., Cook, M., Pun, W. H., & Hillemeier, M. M. (2017). Executive functioning deficits increase kindergarten children’s risk for reading and mathematics difficulties in first grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.01.004

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Why we care about the K in K-12. Young Children, 60(2), 54–56.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/ files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/PSDAP.pdf

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2018). Child poverty. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/topics/child poverty.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2016: Table 203.10 enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by level and grade: Selected years, fall 1980 through fall 2026. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_203.10.asp?current=yes

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 361

Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., & Anderson, D. (2013). A primer on longitudinal data analysis in education. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Pakulak, E., Bell, T., Giuliano, R., Gomsrud, M., Karns, C., Klein, S., … Neville, H. (2015, November). Effects of an integrated two-generation intervention on stress physiology and brain function for self-regulation in children and parents: Preliminary results. Working paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Conference. Miami, FL. Retrieved from https://appam.confex.com/appam/2015/webprogram/Paper12786.html

Raver, C. C., Blair, C., & Willoughby, M.; Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2013). Poverty as a predictor of 4- year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 292–304. doi:10.1037/a0028343

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362–378.

Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Are approaches to learning in kindergarten associated with academic and social competence similarly? Child Youth Care Forum, 44(6), 757–776. doi:10.1007/s10566-015-9307-0

Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Links between motor control and classroom behaviors: Moderation by low birth weight. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(8), 2423–2434. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0410-0

Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program in elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 7(1), 91–102.

Rinaldi, C., Rogers-Adkinson, D., & Arora, A. (2009). An exploratory study of the oral language and behavior skills of children with identified language and emotional disabilities in preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 1(1), 32–45.

Roy, A. L., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Are all risks equal? Early experiences of poverty-related risk and children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 391–400. doi:10.1037/a0036683

Sharkins, K. A., Leger, S. E., & Ernest, J. M. (2017). Examining effects of poverty, maternal depression, and children’s self-regulation abilities on the development of language and cognition in early childhood: An early Head Start perspective. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 493–498. doi:10.1007/s10643-016-0787-9

Shonkoff, J. P. (2011). Protecting brains, not simply stimulating minds. Science, 333(6045), 982–983. doi:10.1126/ science.1206014

Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40 (1), 85–107.

Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Southern Education Foundation. (2015, January). Research bulletin. A new majority: Low income students now a majority in the nation’s public schools. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/4ac62e27- 5260-47a5-9d02-14896ec3a531/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now.aspx

Vallotton, C. D., Harewood, T., Ayoub, C. A., Pan, B., Mastergeorge, A. M., & Brophy-Herb, H. (2012). Buffering boys and boosting girls: The protective and promotive effects of early head start for children’s expressive language in the context of parenting stress. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(4), 696–707. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.001

Vernon-Feagans, L., Willoughby, M., & Garrett-Peters, P.; The Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2016). Predictors of behavioral regulation in kindergarten: Household chaos, parenting, and early executive functions. Developmental Psychology, 52(3), 430–441.

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x

Willoughby, M., Kupersmidt, J., Voegler-Lee, M., & Bryant, D. (2011). Contributions of hot and cool self-regulation to preschool disruptive behavior and academic achievement. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 162–180. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.549980

Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity, and the developing brain. Developmental Review, 38, 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.001

Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2016). Executive function: Implications for education (NCER 2017- 2000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

362 K. A. ALLEE-HERNDON AND S. K. ROBERTS

Copyright of Journal of Research in Childhood Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.