DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME AA 001 0147 Chow, Stanley; And Others Early Childhood...

ED 067 516

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

AA 001 0147

Chow, Stanley; And OthersEarly Childhood Education. PREP-37.National Inst. of Education, Washington, D. C.DHEW-OE-73-27624; PREP-377257p.Superintendent of Documents, U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D. C. 20 402 ($.60)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Child Development; Cognitive Development; *Curriculum

Development; Diff erentiated Staffs; DisadvantagedYouth; *Early Childhood Education; EducationalObj ectives ; Educational Programs; EducationalResearch; *Elementary School Curriculum;Instructional Materials; Intellectual Development;Intervention; Models; Parent Education; *PreschoolCurriculum; *Program Descriptions; Skill Development;Social Development; Teacher Education

IDENTIFIERS PREP; *Putting Research into Educational Practice

ABSTRACTPrograms that represent major curriculum development

efforts in early childhood education are described as to goals andobjectives, content and materials, classroom activities, parentinvolvement, professional and paraprofessional training,administrative requirements and costs, program development andevaluation, and program history and present status. The programspresented are the following: (1) Ameliorative Program (University ofIllinois) , (2) Appalachia Preschool Education Program (AppalachiaEducation Laboratory, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia) , (3) The BankStreet Model (Bank Street College of Education, N. Y., N. Y.) , (4)

The Behavior Analysis Model (University of Kansas), (5) The CognitiveCurriculum (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti,Michigan), (6) Demonstration and Research Center for Early Education(DARCEE) (George Peabody College for Teachers) , (7) Early ChildhoodEducation Learning System (Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory, Austin, Texas), (8) East Harlem Block Schools (EastHarlem Block Schools, N. Y., O. Y.) , (9) Education Development CenterOpen Education Model (Education Development Center, Newton,Massachusetts), (10) Engelmann-Becker Model (University of Oregon; ,

(11) Florida Parent Education Program (University of Florida) , (12)

The Interdependent Learning Model (New York University), (13) PrimaryEducation Project (University of Pittsburgh), (14) Responsive Program(Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development,Berkeley, California) , and (15) Tucson Early Education Model(University of Arizona) . A bibliography and references from RIE aregiven. (DB)

N

PuttingResearch intoEducationalPractice

rly

EPRepb

,

.A

hilt ucation

:"...

. .,. .

. .

. .

.

it,":,,4t.

',;,'): ..., ,,,,:.r.',, ,

t,

LDMI

PUTTING RESEARCH INTO EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

a synthesis and interpretation of research, development, andcurrent practice on a specific educational topic

a method of getting significant R&D findings to the practi-tioner quickly

the best thinking of researchers interpreted by specialists insimple language

the focus of research on current educational problems

a format which can be easily and inexpensively reproducedfor wide distribution

raw material in the public domain which can be adapted tomeet local needs

an attempt to improve our Nation's schools through research

Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget July 27, 1970.

DHEW Publication No. (OE) 73-27624

Early Childhood Education

PREP Report No. 37

Stanley Chow, Pat Elmore,and Vicki Ertle,Far West Laboratory forEducational Research andDevelopment, Berkeley,California

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE/National Institute of Education

2

I

1

1

1

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON: 1972

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 - Price 60 cents

. 4

TRENDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

The Rationale for Early Childhood Education

If one thinks of education as a race fromkindergarten to college, then Head Start seemsa perfect name for the preschool programwhich aims to get poor children ready to com-pete on even terms with youngsters of the whitemiddle class.

The Great Society's favorite educational proj-ect flowered very suddenly, it seemed, in 1965;but its roots went back a decade to two eventswhich deeply influenced American public edu-cation. One was the Supreme Court school de-segregation decision of 1954 promisingeventuallyequal opportunity in education forall races. The other was the Russians' launch-ing of their spacecraft Sputnik in 1957, andAmericans' interpretation that being secondplace in the space race was at least partlycaused by our schools being second rate.

Actually the public schools had been underfire for several years after World War II, as aloud group of critics from university professorsto businessmen claimed that the schools werenot training future mathematicians, physicists,engineers, and other kinds of advanced scien-tists whomso the critics saidthe Nationwould need to cope with our complicated tech-nological society by the year 2000. The wholerange of the public education system was calledwasteful. Even nursery schools were said to beslack in their duty, for the early years of child-hood should be used for "learning how tolearn," not just for gaining emotional security.

William Fowler was one of those who firststrongly contradicted the prevailing notionabout nursery school that toddlers must not bepushed to learn. This idea meant frittering awaychildren's most precious learning years, Fowlerclaimed. He pointed 'tot only to his own successwith formal teaching programs for 3-year-oldsbut also to his studies of adults of high intelli-gence. Invariably, he said, they had had strongearly intellectual stimulation. Thus Fowlerclaimed it is not simply that bright people are"gifted" but that they are stimulated very earlyin life to explore and discipline their talents.Intelligence lot fixed at birth.

Several other psychological studies publishedby the early 1960's agreed that growth in learn-

1

ing power, qr "cognitive development," takesplace in ordered stages during early childhood,each stage bullding upon what has been learnedalready, but every stage equally dependent onthe child interacting with his environment. Ofgreat importance among these studies was thelifelong work of the Swiss psychologist JeanPiaget, translated and available to Americanpsychologists for the first time in the 1950's.

The American cognitive psychologists inter-preted Piaget to mean that variety is not justthe spice but the very building blocks of life,where learning is concerned. The greater thevariety of objects and experiences which thechild meets, the more varied and flexible hislearning behavior becomes. He saves up everyexperience, savors it, stores it, and uses it withthe next encounter. Thus the more new thingsa child has seen and heard, the more he canbe interested in; the more he has coped withnew situations, the stronger grows his ability tocope. In direct opposition to the beliefs of thetraditionaliststhat a child's mind matures ac-cording to an inborn pattern that must not bepressuredthe new learning psychologists pro-claimed that the child's own actions "build hismind," and that the structure can be slowed orspeeded up by the influence of the child's sur-roundings.

The cognitive psychologists identified vitalskills which the child teaches himself by aboutthe age of 4, provided he has a sufficientlystimulating environment: (1) to zero his atten-tion in on one object or event in his surround-ings, and hold it in the focus of his senses; (2)to value as information the clues which hiseyes, ears, touch, taste, smell bring in to hisbrain; (3) to collect these varied facts into afiling system he makes up himself and to com-bine them into organized ideas that make somesense of his world; (4) to use words as symbolsfor the facts and ideas he has collected, thusenabling him to gather much more information,and to express himself. These are "learninghow to learn" skills which the psychologists ob-served that normal children from middle-classfamilies possessed when they entered kinder-garten.

Observing children who did not demonstrate

. 5

such skills in typical kindergartens or in tests,the psychologists deduced that these childrenhad not received enough variety and richnessof stimulation in their surroundings. Such alack could retard a child's learning deve!op-ment as surely as lack of protein would stunthis physical growth. Similarly, they believed,an increase in variety and richness during earlychildhood (such as had been used in a numberof teaching programs which had brought men-tally retarded children up to the range of nor-mal intelligence) might produce an entirelynew, higher level intelligence in human beings.Thus the cognitive psychologists set about tofind deliberate means of providing stimulation,or "enrichment," in learning environments."One does not sit by and wait for children to'unfold,' " said Martin Deutsch. "Growth re-quires the guidance of stimulation." He estab-lished the Institute for Developmental Studiesat the New York Medical College especially toprovide poor nonwhite children with "an or-ganized and reasonably orderly program ofstimulation at as early an age as possible, tocompensate for possible cognitive deficit," andto study the relationship between this so-calleddeficit and the "slum" environment.

The Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies wasestablished in 1960. Its director, Jerome S.Bruner, was convinced that growth in learningdepends on the kinds of tools which the youngmind finds in his surroundings. "I cannot con-ceive of growth just from the inside out. Manis born naked, and culture shapes him," Brunertold the journalist Maya Pines. "We are onlynow on the threshold of knowing the range ofeducability of manthe perfectibility of man!"he exclaimed.

As prestigious and as optimistic as Bruner atthis time was J. McVicker Hunt of the Univer-sity of Illinois. In 1961 he wrote that futuregenerations of mankind could be made moreintelligent if only we would guarantee that everychild has proper preschool enrichment. But hecautioned that what is proper for one child maybe silly for another, and identified what he con-sidered to be the major problem in preschooleducation: "the problem of the match."

"This means," said Hunt, "that before youcan teach a child you must discover what hetruly needs to know at that moment. Don't offerhim something too similar to what he has mas-

tered already; he won't think it worthwhile tomake the effort. Don't present new objects, newsituations, words, or ideas that look 'far out'to him, or he will be afraid to try for fear offailing. The trick is to find 'the optimum of in-congruity'the exactly perfect amount of dis-crepancy between what the child knows and thenew experience you can offer him."

By 1962 Hunt saw great promise in the newexperimental programs of Deutsch and otherswhich would use planned, organized "enrich-ment" in preschool years in order to preventthe school failures that seemed inevitable forchildren from poor areas of large cities. Huntnot only believed that the basic store of intelli-gence could be increased by the right enrich-ment at the right time, but was also increas-ingly sure from research on animals as well ashumans that the process of learning is pleasur-able and not painful. Children just naturallyenjoy learning, Hunt wrote, provided that theirother basic needs are satisfied. The work ofOmar Khayyam Moore, who in 1959 startedteaching 2- and 3-year-olds to read and writeon an electric typewriter, was exciting evidencethat learning could be its own reward.

In 1964 an analysis of the growth records of1,000 children from infancy through age 18gave more powerful ammunition to the ideathat early childhood before elementary schoolis the critical age for learning. Benjamin Bloomfound a common pattern running through all1,000 cases. While a person's adult intelligencecould not be reliably predicted from tests thathad been given when he was a baby, Bloomreported that "in terms of intelligence meas-ured at 17, about 50 percent of the develop-ment takes place between conception and age4, about 30 percent between ages 4 and 8, andabout 20 percent between ages 8 and 17."

Bloom and other psychologists and educa-tors interpreted these statistics to mean thatchildren apparently form more of their intelli-gence between birth and 8 than between 8 and17, and thus the home environment during theearly years is vitally important to later develop-ment. The assumptions and interpretations onwhich this rests have since been questioned,but at the time they were published, Bloom'sstatistical studies were looked at together withnumerous tests of performance showing thatpoor children "achieved" less than middle-class

2 6

children. What came out was the profoundlyinfluential idea that the homes of the poor chil-dren lack the variety and richness of stimula-tion needed for cognitiVe growth.

Maya Pines presented the evidence in herbest-selling book The Revolution in Learning in1966. "The mind-builders see the differencebetween babies from middle-class homes andthose who are born into poverty emergingvividly about the age of one-and-a-half. . . . Themiddle-class toddlers forge ahead, investigatingtheir exciting world of toys, speech, and gamesunder the guidance of interested adults. Thechildren of poverty, in their crowded and dis-organized homes, learn that the best way tostay out of trouble is to keep quiet. . . . Coin-cidentally, their IQ's begin to drop. By kinder-garten age these children have been so starvedintellectually that their IQ's run some 5 to 15points below those of their middle-class peers.. . . With every year in school, the IQ's of slumchildren continue to sink, until they reach alevel some 20 points below that of more privi-leged children. . . . This does not mean thatthey have become more stupid than before, butit does mean that they have failed to grow in-tellectually while middle-class children did. .If a child's educational achievements dependso heavily on what he learned before the age ofsix, the homenot the schoolemerges asthe major educational institution in the land.. . . This naturally leads to the question, Whatshould be done when the home fails? Shouldone just sit back and watch millions of childrenmarch toward wholesale school failure, orshould one intervene? ..."

"Interventions" in a number of programs andplaces were showing promise: Besides MartinDeutsch in New York there were Susan Gray inNashville, Tenn.; David Weikart in Ypsilanti,Mich.; and Carl Bereiter in Urbana, Ill. Allraised the hope that the preschool could "com-pensate" for the "deficit" of the poor child'shome.

Thus during the decade following the Su-preme Court desegregation decision, the cogni-tive psychologists enunciated the following the-ories which formed the new doctrine of earlychildhood education in the 1960's and preparedthe way for Head Start.

(1) Intelligence is not fixed at birth. (2) Itgrows in interaction with the variety of stimu-

3

lating objects and circumstances which arepresent in the young child's environment. (3)Just as much growth occurs between birth and4 as between 4 and 17thus the preschoolyears are more influential than the elementaryschool age. (4) The "critical time" for cognitivegrowth, plus the critical placea stimulatingenvironmentproduce the theory that thehomeor an "enriched" substitute for it, thepreschoolis more influential than the ele-mentary school.

Head Start and Follow Through

Head Start began with warm hopes in thesummer of 1965. Twenty-four hundred com-munities throughout the Nation received U.S.Government funds to set up local preschoolprograms for 561,000 children. The followingfall, year-round programs were started for20,000 children.

Every Head Start program was different.There was no centralized control from theOffice of Economic Opportunity (0E0) in Wash-ington. No specific techniques of instructionwere required by Washington since communitydecisionmaking was one of the main goals ofthe War on Poverty. Nevertheless, from thebeginning there was a strong similarity in edu-cational aproach among all the Head Start cen-ters across the Nation. The first survey of HeadStart in 1966 found "a preference for a sup-portive, unstructured, socialization programrather than a structured, informational pro-gram." The survey reported that four out of fivecenter directors agreed that:

Attention to family needs is all-importantbecause whatever affects the family af-fects the child.The child's environment must be madefriendly toward, and understanding of, theschool's efforts and goals.A program should first of all take care ofphysical needs (feeding the children prop-erly, providing adequate medical care,etc.).

The learning process in young children islargely one of interaction with otherhuman beings.

This was not the list of priorities that thelearning psychologists had prescribed. In April

7

1969 the national evaluation of Head Start,commissioned by 0E0, was released. It said:

Summer Head Start programs do not last-ingly improve children's learning or theirattitudes about themselves or towardschool.

Year-round programs do not seem to in-fluence the development of positive atti-tudes. They produce some measurable butnot impressive increases that last throughgrades one, two, and three.Head Start children are below nationalnorms or standardized achievement andpsycholinguistic tests--although theirreading readiness scores approach na-tional norms.Success is mostly in Negro centers, cen-tral cities, and the Southeast.

Parents participate in and like Head Start.

Although expressing disappointment at itsfindings, those who accepted the evaluationsaid, with President Nixon: "If we are to snakethe most of experimental programs, we mustfrankly recognize their experimental natureand frankly acknowledge whatever shortcom-ings they develop." But to others the evaluationseemed rather like blowing the whistle and an-nouncing the results when the race had barelystarted. In Edward and Mary Mc Dill's view,..,Head Start is "a qualified failure," but theychided the faultfinders to remember that "no_publeSclibol system in history has ever beenabolished because it could not teach childrento read and write," yet Head Start was beingasked to succeed in less time than that allowedthe regular school systems.

Many reasons have been stated for HeadStart's failure to succeed in 3 years. (The eval-uation was based on achievement tests of chil-dren who were in Head Start in 1965, 1966,and 1967.) The first is that the program isbasically good but hasn't had time to learnfrom its own experience and make imprJve-ments; that, in fact, graduates of the most re-cent years are doing better than did the earlyparticipants. A corollary to this is that HeadStart is a basically good program but that ithasn't gone in the right direction yet. All thepsychological research on which Head Startwas based, as Well as the experimental pre-schools which preceded it, stipulated that chil-

4

dren should receive intensive, highly organizedinstruction. But the actual practice in mostHead Start centers, at least in the beginningyears, took the direction of "whole child" de-velopmentemotionally supportive and physi-cally therapeutic rather than intellectuallystimulating. No one should be surprised that"cognitive outcomes" were disappointing.

But Head Start also has critics who say thatthe program is failing because it is on thewrong track altogether. Stephen and JoanBaratz charge that Head Start is an example of"institutional racism" because of its goals of"altering the child's home environment, im-proving his language and cognitive skills, andmost particularly changing the patterns ofchild-rearing within the Negro home." Blackchildren's homes are different, the Baratzessay, but not "disadvantaged" either in cultureor in language or in richness and variety ofsensory stimulation. Intervention must be done,but it must "eliminate archaic and inappropri-ate procedures for teaching . . . and substituteprocedures and materials that are culturallyrelevant." As long as Head Start people believethey need to correct or compensate for theblack child's home, instead of discovering andusing its different but equal strengths, HeadStart, according.to the Baratzes, cannot helpany black child to succeed in school.

Finally there are the critics who cite theHead Start experiences as evidence that someof the basic theories of the cognitive psycholo-gists in the past 10 to 15 years are faulty or atleast greatly oversimplified. Lawrence Kohlbergnow doubts that the age from 3 to 4 is a "criti-cal period" for learning. Providing a stimulatingenvironment at that age is no more productivethan doing so during the elementary schoolyears, he claims. In the same vein Arthur Jensenexpresses his doubts that a stimulating environ-ment can influence inborn intelligence to theextent that the "mind builders" so enthusi-astically predicted.

Even before Head Start was tried it was clearthat all the responsibility for change could notbe put on the child, the parent, and the com-munity. The elementary school needed tochange, too.

"Retardation in achievement results from theinteraction of inadequately prepared childrenwith inadequate schools and insufficient cur-

ricula," Martin Deutsch wrote in 1964. "Thefailure of such children to learn is the failureof the schools to develop curricula consistentwith the environmental experiences of thechildren and their initial abilities and dis-abilities."

Deutsch noted that the public schools whichchildren from poor homes attended were "dis-continuous" with their homes. To the poor non-white child the teachers are different from thepeople at home; they make puzzling demandsand seem not to expect the child to succeed.Since the school surroundings are so strangeand the school activities so often end in failure,the child does not have the early experiencesof success which motivate him to learn. Deutschhad faulted poor parents and slum neighbor-hoods for depriving children of variety andrichness that they needed for sensory develop-ment. But he also faulted the educators forfailing to provide an environment in which poorchildren could develop the equally importantlearning attributes of feeling able to cope andhave confidence in themselves. The publicschools have always aimed to serve only thechildren of the middle class, Colin Greercharged. They have always failed the childrenof the poorwhether they were Polish, Irish,Jewish, Mexican, or black.

When Head Start gains were seen to bewiped out in elementary school, Follow Throughwas born. President Johnson, in calling for aFollow Through program in his February 1968Message on Children and Youth to the Congress,stated:

The achievements of Head Startmust not be allowed to fade. For wehave learned another truth whichshould have been self-evidentthatpoverty's handicap cannot be easilyerased or ignored when the door offirst grade opens to the Head Startchild. Head Start occupies only a partof a child's day and ends all too soon.He often returns home to conditionswhich breed despair. If these forcesare not to engulf the child and wipeout the benefits of Head Start, mureis required. Follow Through is essen-tial . . . the benefits of Head Startmust be carried through the earlygrades.

5

In the school year 1967-68 40 pilot FollowThrough programs were established to followthe graduates of Head Start into their ele-mentary schoolseventually as far as gradethreeand to continue to give them enrichedinstructional programs. The administration ofFollow Through was delegated by 0E0 to theU.S. Office of Education.

In 1968-69, Follow Through projects wereenrolling 15,500 children. In 1969-70, the en-rollment figure was 37,000, more than doublethat of the previous year. By 1970-71, 60,000children were enrolled in Follow Through pro-grams across the country. Since Federal fund-ing was not provided for a nationwide program,Follow Through has adopted an experimentalapproach in cooperation with the school dis-tricts which participate. The purpose is toadapt, try out, and evaluate programs for kin-dergarten through grade three, based on theseveral models for compensatory early child-hood education which have shown success intheir experimental forms.

These projects must be carried out so thatchildren have some planned continuity of ex-perience from Head Start into Follow Through,so that they receive health and psychologicalservices in addition to the educational program,and so that "target area" community represen-tatives and parents participate in governanceand policymaking.

Approaches in Early Childhood Education

The major competing theories about how toteach poor children are seen in the instruc-tion& programs of projects described in the ac-companying materials. They run the gamutfrom the theory that what poor minority chil-dren need in order to learn does not really dif-fer from what any children need, to the theorythat poor children need highly organized andcarefully managed instruction olite differentfrom what works with middle -clans children inelementary school. In other words, the pro-grams range from intensive, high-powered drill-ing or programed instruction in language, read-ing, and mathematics fundamentals, to relaxedclassrooms fun of learning playthings fromwhich each child can choose whatever interestshim. Catchword labels for the opposites in this

theoretical range are instruction vs. enrichment,

9

or enforcement from without vs. developmentfrom within, or structured vs. unstructured. Andthere are some programs which combine char-acteristics froM both extremes.

While no one structured program necessarilyincludes all of the characteristics which follow,several of the traits will be recognizable in each.The classroom is teacher-controlled, tightlyscheduled, and highly charged. The teacherdoes not wait for the child to reveal what he isinterested in because this is not necessarilywhat he needs to know for success. The teacheris confident that he or she knows what the childneeds and when he needs it; and that with thisknowledge, skillful intense instruction, and thepromise of rewards ,the child's basic develop-ment schedule can be shoved ahead. The pro-gram organizers have minutely analyzed all ofthe skills that go together to make it possible fora child to master a task. The teacher alwaysknows what skill (behavioral objective) he isteaching, and where it comes in the hierarchy.The curriculum emphasizes the fundamentalslanguage development, reading, mathe-matics. The teaching may be done by pro-gramed instruction, carefully managed experi-ences, or group drill which' capitalizes on theexuberant morale of a group working togetherout loud. The child's time is exceedingly valu-able. Every moment has to count; it cannot bewasted on random, irrelevant, or merely playactivityunless such activity is being used asa reward for serious work. In order to keep upthe learning pace the child may need to be re-warded extrinsically with praise from theteacher, tokens that can be exchanged for

candy or trinkets, or special privileges such asrecess, movies, or free-choice activity. The ulti-mate reward, of course, is success in scho' I.

Most of the "unstructured" programs operateon the conviction that "the problem of thematch," which J. McV. Hunt analyzed, is bestsolved by closely observing the child himself,noting the playthings or learning equipment thathe gets seriously involved with and the level ofcomplexity of his involvement, and making sureto provide new choices each time he's ready toadvance. This may be as careful an attempt atdiagnosis and prescription as is done in pro-grams that depend on programed instruction;the important difference is that the surround-ings and activities are playful for the childrather than traditionally academic in manner.All kinds of experiences, not just academicones, are believed to be cognitively stimulating.Classrooms may look very casual and may notprovide any activities at all which children do"all together in a group with teacher up infront." The casualness and disorder are on thesurface, for calculated care is taken withfurnishings and learning equipment, arrange-ments of time and space, groupings of the chil-dren, observations, and recordkeeping about in-dividual children. Equipment may be as sophis-ticated as a talking typewriter and as plain asbuttons. This approach counts on the child'sintrinsic motivation. Learning is expected to beits own reward, as work is for the professionalor craftsman who loves his job. The child learnsbecause it's challenging and because when hereaches out, something or someone in the en-vironment reaches back and responds.

References

Baratz, S., and Baratz, J. "Early Childhood Interven-tion: The Social Sciences Base of InstitutionalRacism." Harvard Educational Review, 1970, 40 (1),29-47.

Bereiter, C., and Englemann, S. Teaching Disadvan-taged Children in the Preschool. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

. The Effectiveness of Direct Verbal Instructionin IQ Performance and Achievement in Reading andArithmetic. Champaign, III.: Wolfe School, ] 968.

, Osborn, J., and Reidford, P. "An AcademicallyOriented Preschrol for Culturally Deprived Children."Preschool Educai'ion Today. New York: Doubleday &Company, 1966, 105-135.

Bloom, S. Stability and Change in Human Characteris-tics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

Bruner, J. S. "The Cognitive Consequences of EarlySensory Deprivation." Psychosomatic Medicine, 1959,19, 1-15.

. "The Course of Cognitive Development." Amer-ican Psychology, 1964, 19; 1-16.

Circirelli, V. G., et al. The Impact of Head Start: AnEvaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children'sCognitive and Affective Development. 1969, ERIC, ED036321.

Coleman, J. S., et al. Equality of Educational Opportu-nity. Washington, D.C.: .U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1966.

6

10

Deutsch, M. "Facilitating Development in the PreschoolChild." Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10, 249-263.

. The Disadvantaged Child. New York: BasicBooks, 1967.

and Goldstein, L. A. An Evaluation of the Effectsof an Enriched Curriculum in Overcoming the Con-sequences of Environmental Deprivation. ProgressReports 1965, 1966, 1967. New York: institute forDevelopmental Studies, New York University.

Egbert, R. L. Description of Follow Through Approaches.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, Office of Education, June 19, 1969.

Flavell, J. The Developmental Theory of Jean Piaget.New York: Van Nostrand, 1963.

Fowler, W. "Cognitive Learning in Infancy and EarlyChildhood." Psychological Bulletin, 1962, 59, 116-152.

Gray, S. W., and Klaus, R. A. The Early Training Proj-ect: A Seventh Year Report. Nashville: George Pea-body College for Teachers, DARCEE.

, "The Experimental Preschool Program for Cul-turally Deprived Children." Child Development, 1965,36, 887-898.

, Miller, J. 0., and Forrester, B. J. Before FirstGrade. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni-versity Press, 1966.

Hess, R., and Bear, R. M., eds. Early Education. Chi-cago: Aldene Co., 1967.

Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New York:Ronald Press, 1961.

7

"The Psychological Basis for Using PreschoolEnrichment-as an Antidote for Cultural Deprivation."Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1364, 10, 209-248.

Jensen, A. R. "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scho-lastic Achievement?" Harvard Educational Review,1969, 39, 1-23.

Kirk, S. A. Early Education for the Mentally Retarded.Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1958.

Kohlberg, L. "Early Education: A Cognitive Develop-mental View." Child Development, 1968, 39, 1013-1062.

Mc Dill, E. L., Mc Dill, M., and Sprehe, J. T. Strategiesfor Success in Compensatory EducationAn Ap-praisal of Evaluation Research. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1969.

Moore, 0. K., and Anderson, A. R. "The ResponsiveEnvironment Project." Early Education. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Co., 1967.

Nimnicht, G., McAffe, 0., and Meier, J. The New Nurs-ery School. New York: General Learning Corp., 1967.

Pines, M. Revolution in Learning. New York: Harper andRow, 1966.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Office of Education. It Works: Preschool Program inCompensatory Education 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1968.

Weikart, D. P. Preschool Intervention: A PreliminaryReport of the Perry Preschool Project. Ann Arbor,Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1967.

and Wiegerink, R. Initial Results of a Compara-tive Preschool Curriculum Project. Ypsilanti, Mich.:Public Schools, January 30, 1967.

I6

SELECTING AN EARLY CHILDHOOD MODEL

The programs described in this report repre-sent major curriculum development efforts inearly childhood education. While all of theseprogram sponsors agree on some ultimate edu-cational goals for children, there is little agree-ment on the best way to achieve these goals.To help school administrators sort out majordifferences among programs, the followingguidelines are offered.

Cognitive Development Vs. BehaviorModification

One of the fundamental differences amongearly childhood education alternatives todaylies in a program's allegiance to certain theoret-ical persuasions. Basing their beliefs on theworks of Piaget, the cognitive developmentalistsargue that education is a process of buildingcognitive structures in children according to adevelopmental framework. The child learns tointeract with his environment, first throughsome concrete means (sensory-motor), andlater through the use of abstract symbols (lan-guage or numbers). The proponents of this viewbelieve education must capitalize on these de-velopmental stages to provide activities andexperiences that coincide with levels of cogni-tive growth. The Cognitive Curriculum andDARCEE (Demonstration and Research Centerfor Early Education) models reflect this view.

The behaviorists (developers of the Engel-mann-Becker Model and the Behavior AnalysisModel) draw on the works of B. F. Skinner andargue that it is not productive to talk aboutinternal mechanisms or processes which can-not be observed, measured, and therefore sub-jected to some control. Instead, they see educa-tion as a process to provide changes in observ-able behavior such as knowledge gains in chil-dren.

Extrinsic Vs. Intrinsic Motivation

One way of entertaining the extrinsic versusintrinsic motivation controversy is to ask: Whatis the payoff for learning? Is it external or in-ternal to the learner? Some program developers(for example, Bank Street, Cognitive Curricu-lum, EDC (Education Development Center), andthe Responsive Model) argue that children

learn best when they are motivated and inter-ested and that, therefore, activities should begeared to individual interests.

In the minds of other program sponsors(notably those from the Behavior Analysis Modeland the Engelmann-Becker Model), young chil-drenspecifically those in Follow Through.need to rely on external rewards such as tokensand special attention from the teacher to buildup their confidence before they can find learn-ing instrinsically rewarding. In addition, thesesponsors maintain that they do not wish to leavelearning to chance; in other words, teacherscannot wait for children to become interested,they must ensure interest by whatever meansnecessary. Believing that internal motivation isteachable, proponents of extrinsic rewards seeit as part of the schools' responsibility to set upan effective reinforcement system and to makesure that learning occurs. EDC, Bank Streetand Responsive Program sponsors, however,find this approach unacceptable; they feel thatchildren are manipulated under the extrinsicreward system to work for gratification fromadults according to adult expectations.

Teacher's Role

The cognitive developmentalists and the be-havior modifiers call for divergent teachingstyle and skills. These differences are some-what analogous to the distinction between theart and the technology of teaching.

The cognitive programs require that teachersbe inventive and bring together a variety ofmaterials for a specific lesson. They also en-courage teachers to prepare their own class ac-tivities based on class interests. Because num-erous activities usually go on simultaneously,teachers must be flexible and tolerate frequenttransitions from one task to another.

The behavior modifiers, on the other hand,supply teachers with all necessary materials.Teachers must be proficient in the techniquesof reinforcement and be willing to follow pre-scribed teaching methods.

Evaluation and Accountability

The programs which emphasize skill develop-ment and knowledge acquisition (Engelmann-

(

Becker, DARCEE) show more promising dataregarding the program's effectiveness. In con-trast, the programs that focus also on affectivedevelopment (Bank Street, Tucson, EDC) havelittle or no available data to show that theseprograms work. Developers of these programsbelieve that standardized tests are inadequateto cover their program objectives and that noinstrument is presently available which ade-quately measures affective concerns. Many de-velopers are eager to show success, however,and efforts are being made to design more ap-propriate instruments.

Costs

Cost estimates are generally vague or simplyunavailable. The only programs with adequatecost figures are the Behavior Analysis Model

9

and the Engelmann-Becker Model. For theother, more open models, the costs are diffi-cult to ascertain since a variety of instructionalmaterials are needed and prices will vary ac-cording to what materials schools already havein use.

Final Comment

This section has pointed out some things toconsider when curriculum alternatives are be-ing reviewed. There are, of course, more con-cerns which go into the selection of a curricu-lumfor example, the innovativeness of thesuperintendent, community readiness, availablefunds, personnel, and so on. The following pro-gram description should serve as a startingpoint for the administrator when consideringalternatives in early childhood education in lightof local needs, constraints, and resources.

AMELIORATIVE PROGRAM

Project Director: Merle B. Karnes

Institute for Research on Exceptional ChildrenUniversity of Illinois

Champaign, Illin Cis 61820

Goals and Objectives

The major goal of the Ameliorative Programis to "prepare the young disadvantaged childfor effective participation in a standard schoolprogram," providing students with good atti-tudes about themselves and school, and equip-ping them with the necessary cognitive orlearning skills to succeed. Subgoals are as fol-lows:

To enhance cognitive development, par-ticularly languageTo develop motivation conducive to learn-ingTo acquire effective information-process-ing skillsTo develop a positive self-conceptTo enhance social and emotional develop-mentTo promote motor skillsTo encourage parental participationTo enhance staff competencies.

Content and Materials

The basic concepts and skills consideredprerequisites to academic success in the earlyelementary years are taught in three areas:language development-reading readiness, math-ematics, and science-social studies.

There are numerous curriculum guides forteachers in each curriculum area. Each lessonhas stated behavioral objectives with corre-sponding, "criterion tasks," which help theteacher assess whether or not children havelearned what each lesson was designed toteach. The behavioral objectives and criteriontasks also inform the teacher of the children'sprogress and special needs, and alert her whento examine the effectiveness of her teaching.

In the science-social studies, the curriculumstarts with a body awareness unit that includesbody exercises, songs, precut unassembled fig-ures, and body outlines of the children in the

10

class. This is followed by a unit on family mem-bers and home environment where children cutclothing ads from catalogs and sort them ac-cording to body parts. Other units include com-munity buildings, workers, and seasons.

The mathematics curriculum focuses onbasic number concepts and manipulative skills;it also teaches a mathematics vocabulary. Thefollowing general areas are stressed: identifica-tion of five geometric shapes, one-to-onematching and how it relates to copying pat-terns, matching quantity, establishing sets,counting, dimension and seriation, numerals asvisual symbols, and beginning addition and sub-traction with manipulative objects.

In the language development-reading readi-ness curriculum, teachers often read to thechildren. Children learn to hold books correctly,turn the pages in sequence, associate the pic-tures with the spoken word, and develop a left-to-right progression. In other activities visual-motor coordination and visual-auditory discrimi-nations are emphasized. The program placesthe highest priority on language development,and this area receives the major emphasis eachday. Manipulative materials such as puzzlesand lotto games are used to elicit verbal re-sponses from the children.

Teachers plan activities, evaluate the chil-dren's progress, and have daily briefing sessionswith aides and volunteers about how well theprogram is working with their class. Curriculumguides are not expected to be followed assidu-ously; the developers feel that the lesson planscan serve only as models and that meaningfuland effective curriculum must be developed byteachers. The developers suggest that, whenplanning lessons, teachers must not only con-sider their own talents and limitations in devis-ing new activities, but must also pay close at-tention to the interests and needs of the chil-dren. The only real requirement for planninglessons is that they be structured to requireverbal responses from the children.

To help determine linguistic strengths andweaknesses of children, the Illinois Test of Psy-cholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) is used. The ITPAsubtests include areas such as grammatic clo-sure, auditory association, visual association,and visual decoding. Using these subtests,teachers, trained aides, and volunteers preparediagnostic profiles on each child at the begin-ning of the year to be used in planning appro-priate learning activities according to individualstrengths and weaknesses. The ITPA profilesalso help the teacher to see if he is spendingappropriate amounts of time and work in thoseareas covered by the subtests, and help himmaintain a more individualized form of teach-ing.

The materials for the Ameliorative Programare not yet commercially available, but the de-velopers expect to have them ready for distribu-tion sometime in 1972. These materials willinclude about 1,500 lesson plans packaged inapproximately 23 books. In addition to theguides, a variety of inexpensive manipulativematerials will be required for each class usingthe program.

Classroom Activities

The typical class consists of 15 children, whoare assigned to instructional groups on thebasis of ability (Binet IQ). Each instructionalgroup generally has five children.

A typical day starts with a teacher planningsession where teachers discuss the plans forthe day and demonstrate any new materials tobe used. After the children arrive and eat abreakfast snack, spontaneous conversationtakes place. Children are then ready for the firststructured period, in which language develop-ment-reading readiness, mathematics, and sci-ence-social studies are taught. These periodslast from 15 to 25 minutes each. In the struc-tured periods incorrect responses are immedi-ately corrected and the appropriate or correctresponses are reinforced by verbal praise. Inthis way children are constantly reassured asto their own competencies, and are more moti-vated to learn.

In addition to the structured periods, the chil-dren are allowed to form their own groups formusic and directed play. At the end of the class,teachers evaluate the session, discussing the

11

progress of the children and the success of thelessons used that day. This schedule can beadapted for half days or full days; storytime,sleep periods, and meals can be added accord-ingly.

Parent Involvement

After being trained by the classroom teacher,parents may work as aides and volunteers in theclassroom. Parent involvement helps the pro-gram gain community support and providesemployment for many mothers from low-incomefamilies.

Professional and Paraprofessional Training

Teacher training is an ongoing process. Ac-tivities are planned each day, and successesand failures are recounted in open discussions."Debriefing" sessions are held often to relievebuilt-up tensions and promote positive attitudeson the part of the teachers, aides, and volun-teers. Aides and volunteers are generally moth-ers or older sisters of children in the class.They are trained and supervised by t.i certifiedteachers; however, the developers do not pro-vide materials for training.

Administrative Requirements and Costs

No special administrative requirements arespecified. As the program materials are not yetavailable commercially, it is premature to esti-mate the costs of implementing the program.

Program Development and Evaluation

The program was heavily based on two con-ceptual modelsGuilford's Structure of Intel-lect and the Illinois Test of Psycho linguisticAbilities. The developers also drew from thework of other researchers. For example, thedecision to use behavioral objectives was largelythe result of Mager's work (1962, 1968); theemphasis on positive reinforcement can belinked to studies that indicate that learning maybe best accomplished by positive reinforce-ments and rewards. Other research in the areaof parental involvement (Karnes, 1969) re-vealed that low-income parents can be taughtteaching competencies which will result in ac-celeration of their chidlren's learning abilities.

. 15

Extensive evaluation studies using controlgroups have demonstrated gains in K1, languagedevelopment, vocabulary comprehension, andvisual perception for children in the Ameliora-tive Program. The most comprehensive of thesestudies compared the effectiveness of four pre-school intervention programs:

A traditional nursery school program thatused music, art, and outdoor play activi-ties to promote personal, motor, social,and language development

A community-integrated program similarto the traditional school except that it op-erated at four neighborhood centers andwas integrated socioeconomically

A Montessori program

A structured experimental program identi-cal to the Ameliorative Program describedin this summary.

Children were screened to ensure compara-bility in the areas of age, sex, race, 10, andsocioeconomic status. The following tests wereadministered at pretest and posttest settings:Stanford-Binet Individual Intelligence Scale,Form L-M, 1960; Illinois Test of Psycholinguis-tic Abilities (ITPA), experimental edition, 1961;Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; and TheFrostig Development Test of Visual Perception(posttest only).

The following data strongly support the effectiveness of the program:

BinetMean /Q ITPA Difference score

PeabodyMean IQ

Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Traditional 94.5 102.6 5.3 1.0 80.2 92.6Community-Integrated 93.3 98.4 6.3 5.2 81.4 85.6Montessori 94.1 99.6 3.9 5.3 83.3 87.3Experimental 96.0 110.3 3.3 2.9 85.8 96.1

Program History and Present status

Work on the Ameliorative Program formallybegan in 1965 with a research grant from theU.S. Office of Education. During the 5 years ofdevelopment, the program staff, under the di-rection of Dr. Merle B. Karnes, tested the pro-gram in different settings with various staffingpatterns, for example, with a paraprofessionalstaff consisting of teenage sisters of preschoolchildren, and also with children who were atthe same time being taught at home by their

mothers. Results of these evaluations may beobtained from the developer.

The year 1970-71 was spent on further fieldtesting, final editing of the materials, and nego-tiating with publishers so that the programmight soon be disseminated nationally.

The developers have expressed a willingnessto disseminate working papers, evaluationstudies, and other descriptive materials aboutthe Ameliorative Program to interested persons.All inquiries should be directed to the Institutefor Research on Exceptional Children.

APPALktHIA PRESCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAM

Project Director: Roy Alford

Appalachia Education Laboratory, Inc.Box 1348, Charleston, West Virginia 25325


The Appalachia Preschool Education Programis a demonstration project designed to providefor children from rural Appalachia a preschooleducation which they would not otherwise re-ceive. In a region which has a sparse populationscattered over a large area with poor accessroads, the traditional nursery schoolhouse con-cept is geographically and financially unfeas-ible. The Appalachia Educational Laboratory,one of the regional laboratories funded by theU.S. Office of Education, has developed a home-oriented preschool program as an alternativeapproach to prepare 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds forfirst grade. The program focuses on the devel-opment of language, cognitive, motor, and ori-enting and attending skills.


The home-oriented program consists of threemajor components: a television program, ahome visitor program, and a mobile classroomprogram. The television program, called Aroundthe Bend, consists of 150 half-hour lessonswhich are broadcast over, a local TV station ona weekly basis. Patty, the on-camera teacher,explores places such as a library, which ruralchildren seldom have a chance to see, throughsongs, games, art work, and puppets. Sheteaches number skills, color and size discrimi-nation, and the alphabet. Each broadcast iscentered around the development of skills.

The television program is supplemented by ahome visitor program. Eight trained home vis-itors visit about 30 homes a week, spendingabout 30 to 45 minutes at each home. Theybring materials, such as books, to supplementthe television lesson. The home visitor tutorsand encourages parents to take part in learningactivities.

The third major component of the programis a mobile classroom, a large van with an 8' by11' "classroom." It is heated, air-conditioned,carpeted, and has a water supply and a chemi-

cal toilet. It contains child-size furniture, audio-visual equipment, a cooking area, a chalk board,a bulletin board, cabinet space, books, and anassortment of manipulative toys. Staffed by ateacher and an aide, the van makes nine stopsa week. At each stop the staff provides 2 hoursof instruction for 15 children who live within a2-mile radius. The activities in the mobile class-room are planned to relate to the skills taughton the TV program and home visitor program.One distinctive feature of the mobile classroomprogram is that it provides children with socialcontacts with other children.

Materials used in all these three programsinclude commercially available books, puzzles,manipulative toys, and other home-made orteacher-made items.


The project staff is divided into two teams:the curriculum team and the field team. Thecurriculum team is responsible for the develop-ment of all curriculum materials used by theTV teacher, the home visitor, and the mobileclassroom teacher. The field consists of the vanteacher, her aide, a field team leader, an in-structional monitor, and eight paraprofessionalhome visitors. The field team members aregiven 3 weeks of preservice training by the proj-ect staff at the Appalachia Educational labora-tory, which involves an introduction to the studyof child development, use of materials appro-priate for preschool children, sensitivity train-ing, and practice in the use of interview tech-niques. Training materials are available fromthe Appalachia Educational Laboratory.

Administrative Requirements and Cost

The startup cost to purchase a fully equippedmobile classroom is $22,000, which will serviceup to 160 children per year. TV lessons andtraining materials are available from the devel-oper on loan and at no cost to school districts

interested in implementing the program. Thedevelopers estimate that the annual cost toimplement this program for all 3-, 4-, and 5-year -olds in the State of West Virginia willamount to about $235 per child, as comparedto a cost of $496 per child per year if the tra-ditional schoolhouse concept is implemented.


Since 1968, the program has reached 4503-, 4-, and 5-year-old children in rural Appa-lachia. To evaluate the effectiveness of theprogram, a battery of tests was used, includingthe Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, theForstig Visual Perception Test, the Illinois Testof Psycho linguistic Abilities, and the AppalachiaPreschool Test developed by the project staff tomeasure objectives of the program. The 1969-70 test data showed some significant differ-ences on the Appalachia Preschool Test

between the experimental groups and the con-trols. Other significant differences were shownprimarily for the 3-year-old girl subgroup. Thedevelopers felt that these results were encour-aging enough to continue development of theprogram for a third year (1970-71).

An attempt was also made to measure sociallearning in the mobile classroom by using an

.1:

interaction analysis technique devised by theproject staff. The technique involved observingand recording social behavior on 28 social skillindicators, such as "requests assistance" and"initiates antagonistic action." The resultsshowed that the group with mobile classroomexposure tended to be less withdrawn thangroups without the mobile classroom experi-ence. The developers felt that certain socialskills were related to the mobile classroom ex-periences.

Another evaluation study, comparing achieve-ment of regular kindergarten graduates andgraduates from the Appalachia model, is under-way. Results from this comparative study areunavailable at this time.

Program History and Present Development

The Appalachia Preschool Education Pro-gram is a 3-year demonstration project whichbegan during the 1968-69 school year. To thepresent time, 450 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old childrenin rural Appalachia have been enrolled in thehome-oriented program. The project hopes todemonstrate the effectiveness of this approachand to implement the program for the entire3-, 4-, and 5-year-old population in the Stateof West Virginia.

14 .18

THE BANK STREET MODEL

Project Director: Elizabeth Gilkeson

Bank Street College of EducationFollow Through Program610 West 112th Street

New York, New York 10025

Goals and Objectives \

The Bank Street Mode'l, operated by the BankStreet College of Education in New York City,is a model for Follow Through and Head Startclasses. It is designed primarily for childrenfrom non-middle-class backgrounds in pre-

school through third grade. The developers be-lieve, however, that the program is suitable forall children within these grade levels regardlessof social or economic background.

The primary goal of the program is to stimu-late involvement and self-direction in learning.This approach is based upon the premise thateducational goals for individual children arenot preset, but instead evolve continuously ac-cording to the child's progress. The developersbelieve that, in order for a child to become aself-directed learner, he must first develop apositive self-image and develop skill competen-cies in the cognitive areas. Specific educationalobjectives for the children are:

To develop a facility with numbers andletters.

To develop thinking processes.To develop ordering processes.

To develop a sense of space and time.

To develop a sense of change as it occursin both natural and man-induced forms.


In subject matter coverage, the Bank StreetMod& does not differ greatly from traditionalapproaches; reading and computational skills,written and spoken language are emphasized.Skill development in these academic areas isseen as only part of the total growth of thechild; the developers consider ego strength,cognitive functioning (reasoning), relationshipswith others, inventiveness, and initiative asequally important areas to consider.

.

ttk 15

No student materials are provided. Teachersare encouraged to make their own and to pur-chase commercially available aids such as lottogames, form boards, and electric typewriters.Bank Street emphasizes the maintenance of avaried environment; classrooms should bestocked with a vark:ty of materials, such as playblocks, dressup clothe,;, dolls, paints, cameras,toys, books, yarn, etc.

Bank Street College has developed a seriesof readers called The Bank Street Readers (pri-mers through third grade, publisehd by theMacmillan Company) and language stimulationmaterials called the Early Childhood DiscoveryMaterials. These are recommended for the program.

For mathematics, the developers suggestCuisena ire rods, the Catherine Stern materials,and the Nuffield Series developed by the Nuf-field Foundation in Great Britain. None of thesematerials are required, however.


The developers see play as the "work ofchildhood" and emphasize play as the primarymeans of learning. Through intense play, theybelieve, children learn skills and acquire knowl-edge because it is important to them, not be-cause it is imposed upon them from theteacher. Teachers are encouraged to listen tothe language of play and to use spontaneousactivities as learning situations, supplying chil-dren with materials and encouragement.

For example, in a project to make apple-sauce, the class is divided into small groups.One group may go to the store to purchaseapples to get practice in weighing and countingmoney. Other groups speculate about what theapples will look like when they are cooked. Sev-eral groups will measure the ingredients, readthe recipe, and cook the applesauce. Finallythe class might discuss how to divide the

149

applesauce among themselves. Using thisactive learning approach, the developers feelthat a system of extrinsic rewards is not neces-sary, that motivation should flow naturally fromthe satisfaction of learning.

Parent Involement

The extent of parent involvement varies fromschool to school. However, Bank Street en-courages parents to visit the classrooms and toreceive training to become paid teaching aides.


Teams of consultants or advisers are sent tothose districts using the Bank Street Model toassist in implementation of the program. Dur-ing the school year, orientation sessions, train-ing institutes, and workshops are held at BankStreet College for teachers and aides. The BankStreet College of Education offers eight unitsof graduate credit for teachers who take partin the training program. Trairking materials(film clips, intercommunity newsletters, tapes,and sample classroom studies) are currentlybeing tested.


A detailed list of "Basic Equipment and Sup-plies" for use with kindergarten through thirdgrade is available from the developers. Besidesteacher- and children-made materials, this listincludes equipment for woodwork, cooking,sewing, science, and art. Commercial programsfor mathematics and reading are also suggested.

The teaching staff consists of one teacherand, ideally, two teacher aides. Ancillary staffshould include a psychologist, nutritionist,nurse, parent coordinators, and social servicepersonnel.

The developers state that the initial cost forequipment and supplies for each grade usingthe model comes to $3,000 per class (25-30children). Maintenance costs are considerablyless.


The Bank Street approach has a multipletheoretical base. The model combines the in-

fluences of psychologists and theorists suchas Piaget, Freud, John Dewey, and Susan Isaacsand is the result of several decades of develop-ment. Within the central theme of providingeducational experiences for the whole child, themodel has undergone numerous modificationsand refinements.

No "hard data" are available that point tothe success of the program because the devel-opers reject standardized testing as a relativelyunimportant segment of the learning process.Instead, the developers use behavior patternsas the basis for evaluating their program. Theprogram is considered successful if individualchildren consistently display satisfactory be-havior patterns.

The developers have devised six methods forevaluating behavior patterns; among these areobservatiijns of teacher-child, teacher-teacher,and child-child interactions. There are alsoparent interviews and skill tests. All testing isdone on an individual basis by the teacher anda psychologist. Evaluation data of this sort arecurrently being gathered and are scheduled tobe released in 1973.

Program History and Present Status

The Bank Street College of Education hasbeen developing early childhood programs forthe past 50 years. Until the early fifties theconcentration was on children whose familiescould afford to pay tuition at private schools,but since the recent upsurge of interest in

minority problems the college has shifted tothe special problems of the poor and workedto create a program that was suitable for allchildren. Because of this shift, many modifica-tions have taken place. The program has gonefrom a nursery school to one including ele-mentary grades and recently linked with theUSOE Follow Through Program as a modelprogram for schools throughout the country.

At present the model is operating in schoolsfrom Vermont and Connecticut to Alabama andColorado. The staff at the college is workingon specific methods of evaluation and trainingprograms and materials.

THE BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS MODEL

Project Director: Don Bushell, Jr.

Follow ThroughDepartment of Human Development

University of KansasLawrence, Kansas 66044


The Behavior Analysis Model is designed toteach children from preschool through thethird grade social and academic skills whichwill enable them to compete effectively in thepublic schools and to train teachers, aides, andparents to use positive reinforcement as anapproach to develop these skills.


Within the broad areas of social and aca-demic skills, the program focuses on skills inreading, mathematics, spelling, and handwrit-ing and a wide range of social skills such ascooperation with peers and adults, decision-making, independence, and self-confidence.

The Behavior Analysis Model recommendsprogramed materials which contain clear cri-teria for success, require frequent respondingby the child, and provide individual rates ofprogress and periodic monitoring of achieve-ment. Among recommended programed mate-rials are:

Reading: Behavior Analysis Phonics Pro-gram published by the devel-opers; Buchanan & SullivanAssociates' Programmed Read-ing and the SRA ReadingLaboratory.

Writing: Behavior Analysis HandwritingPrimer, published by the de-velopers and Skinner andKrarowe r's Handwriting WithWrite and See.

Arithmetic: Sets and Numbers by Suppes

Spelling: Spelling and Writing Patternsby Botel, Holsclaw, Camma-rota, and Brothers.

17


The Behavior Analysis classroom is normallystaffed with a lead teacher, a full-time aide, andtwo parent aides. This team arrangement en-sures that each child re,:eives frequent per-sonal attention. Almost all of the instructionis concluded individually of in small groups.Early instruction periods are short (1.0 min-utes). During the instructional periods, chil-dren work with programed materials and arereinforced for desired behavior such as follow-ing directions and responding correctly toitems. Desired behavior is reinforced immedi-ately with the use of tokens (plastic chips) andwith verbal praise. Each instructional period isfollowed by an activity period during which thechildren can exchange the tokens they haveearned for preferred activities such as freetime or special attention from the teacher. Thispattern of an instructional period followed byan activity period is repeated throughout theschoolday. As the year progresses there is moreinstructional time per activity period. It :s notuncommon to find that at the end of the year45-50 minutes of instruction is supported by10-15 minutes of activities.

The developers of the Behavior AnalysisModel believe that initially young children needto be frequently reinforced for good work. Themodel teaches children to become less de-pendent on external rewards and to enjoy learn-ing for the success it brings them.

Parent Involvement

In addition to participation in the local PolicyAdvisory Committee, parents may serve asparent aides or become full-time teacher aides.Materials for training parents are available fromthe developers.


Teachers and teacher aides must be able toteach in the manner required in a Behavior

. 217

Analysis classroom. They should be able to dis-perse tokens correctly and use prescribedverbal techniques; they should know how tomanage the classroom, do team planning, con-duct activity periods, and prescribe lessons fortutoring sessions.

Since the beginning of the 1970-71 schoolyear, teachers and aides are trained at twoRegional Training Centers (Lawrence, Kans.,and Philadelphia, Pa.). These centers operateon a year-round basis, providing 1-week train-ing cycles, during which teachers and aidesbecome familiar with descriptive literature onthe Behavior Analysis Model and its underlyingresearch base, and work in the center's demon-stration classrooms to acquire necessary prac-tical experience. Materials for training teachersand aides are available from the developers.


Sir.ce most of the instruction is conductedindividually or in small groups, the classroomshould contain work tables large enough toaccommodate a group of four or five childreneach. No other special facilities are requiredother than the usual amount of furniture, stor-age space, and equipment normally found in aclassroom. An EFI recorder and cards (approx-imately $270 plus accessories) and a videotaperecorder, monitor, and camera for 1/2-inch tapes(approximately $1,200) are recommended.

Personnel requirements include a leadteacher, a full-time teacher aide, and two

181

parent aides for every 25 to 30 children. Costsfor these personnel depend on local salaryschedules. The training cost for teachers andaides is estimated at $100 per trainee.


Behavior analysis is an outgrowth of a re-search discipline known as the experimentalanalysis of behavior. B. F. Skinner, his col-leagues and students have been responsible forgenerating a body of research on the subjectover a period of three decades. The appliedaspects of behavior analysis have also beenstudied by followers of the Skinnerian approach,and effects of applied behavior analysis havebeen extensively documented in professionalliterature, especially in the Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis. The Behavior Analysis Modelfor Head Start and Follow Through is anotherdirect application of the discipline.


The kindergarten through third grade modelbegan in 1968 when Follow Through was imple-mented. Prior to that time, Dr. Don Bu.chell,Jr., the director of the model, had been em-ploying the behavior analysis techniques atWebster College and at the Juniper GardensParent Cooperative Preschool. As of 1971, theBehavior Analysis Model is being implementedin 18 Head Start classes and 200 FollowThrough classes.

THE COGNITIVE CURRICULUM

Project Director: David P. Weikart

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation125 N. Huron

Ypsilanti, Michigan 48107


The Cognitive Curriculum preschool programis designed for 3- and 4-year-old children butcan be extended to cover grades K-3. The pro-gram, intended to promote intellectual growthand to help children organize the complexworld around them, is a direct application ofJean Piaget's theories of the development ofintelligence in which each step in intellectualgrowth makes the next step possible. The de-velopers state two broad goals for the program:

1. To help the child develop logicalmodes of thought through conceptformation.

2. To help the child develop the capabil-ity to manipulate symbols and thus toact on and represent the environment.

To accomplish these goals, four cognitive skillareas are specified by the developers.

Classification: To recognize similaritiesand differences among ob-jects and to be able togroup them accordingly.

To arrange objects in anorder by size, quality, orquantity.

To acquire body awarenessand concepts of position(in/out), direction (to/from), and distance (near/far).

Temporal Relations: To understand time se-quence, for example, be-ginning and end, first andlast, and before and after.

Seriation:

Spatial Relations:


The Cognitive Curriculum is designed to de-velop thinking skills rather than subject matterskills. The staff believes that, once the founda-

,

19

tions and prerequisites for reading and writingare acquired, academic skills will follow. Toprovide these foundations, learning activitiesfor each skill area are based on Piaget's "levelsof representation"index, symbol, sign, and"levels of operation"motor and verbal.Teachers are provided with this developmentalframework from which activities can beplanned.

The Cognitively Oriented Curriculum: AFramework for Preschool Teachers is a hand-book designed for teachers. It contains samplelesson plans, information on curriculum plan-ning, teacher attitudes, classroom structure,and suggested instructional strategies. Theprogram does not provide specific instructionalmaterials; those found in most traditional pre-schools may be used.


Children in the classroom learn by activelyinvolving themselves in their environment. Fouractivity areas are provided for this purpose: theart area, the doll area, the block area, and thequiet area. A variety of activities may go onsimultaneously in these areas; however, theseactivities have been carefully planned in ad-vance to teach specific concepts and skills, suchas classification skills or spatial relation skills.

Parent Involvement

A home visit component is included in theprogram. One afternoon a week for 90 minutes,the teacher visits a child's home. The purposesof this visit are to involve the parents in theteaching process by giving them backgroundknowledge about their children's educationalneeds so that they can provide educational sup-port at home, and to implement the curriculumon a one-to-one basis with the child in the home.The teacher usually works with the child forabout 1 hour on activities selected from those

g3

areas where the child needs extra help. Afterworking with the child the teacher spends theremainder of the visit in informal conversationwith the parent, discussing such things as ma-te(ials, discipline, and the child's needs andanswering any questions the parent might have.


An optional training program for teachersand aides is under development at the programoffice in Ypsilanti, Mich. This training will coverall aspects of the program's approach andinclude consultation by the staff.

In addition to this training, the developersrecommend that the teaching teamteachers,aides, and one supervisorcreate their owncontinuous inservice training program. Thesupervisor should be an experienced teacher,ideally one who has taught the curriculum. TheHigh/Scope Foundation staff will suggest activ-ities to include in this inservice training andsupply a catalog of publications and films ap-plicable to the program.


The developers state that the ideal staffingsituation would be two teachers and one aide forevery 15 to 20 children. However, schools areexpected to adapt the program to their existingconditions. There should be one full-time super-visor for every six classrooms.

The classroom should be physically ar-ranged in work areas so that children may begrouped together in different areas at the sametime.

The cost of the program will vary by area orregion, and will depend on what equipment andmaterials the school already has in use.


The Cognitive Curriculum evolved from thePerry Preschool Project which operated in

Ypsilanti,- Mich., from 1961 to 1967. Briefly,the Perry Project was an experiment to assessthe longitudinal effects of a 2-year preschoolprogram designed for children classified by aseries of tests as "culturally deprived" and"functionally retarded." The early years of thePerry Project (1962-64) reflected converginglines of theory and research in early childhoodeducation. Theorists who influenced the earlydesign of the project include Samuel A. Kirk,Martin Deutsch, Fred L. Strodtbeck, MauriceFouracre, Omar K. Moore, and J. McV. Hunt. In1964 the program was revised to follow thedevelopmental stages and theories of JeanPiaget. Measures of student achievement wereused to evaluate program success. The resultsshould not be considered complete; however,on the whole the differences favor the experi-mental groups in the early years, but by thesecond grade these differences disappear onintellectual measures. Factors such as class-room conduct, motivation and performance,and socioemotional state were also examinedby using a Ypsilanti Rating Scale developed bythe staff. On these factors, the experimentalgroups consistently score higher than controlgroups.

Present Status

Currently, the High/Scope Research Founda-tion operates a Training and DevelopmentCenter in Ypsilanti with preschool, kinder-garten, and first and second grade classes.Through the National Planned Variation HeadStart program the Foundation is implementingthe Cognitive Curriculum in centers in Wash-ington (Seattle), Missouri, and Florida.

The High/Scope Research Foundation staffis developing a training program for teachersof the curriculum and working on further re-fining the program in terms of theory and appli-cation. Dissemination efforts are also currentlyunderway.

2024

DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH CENTER FOR EARLY EDUCATION(DARCEE)

Project Director: Susan W. Gray

George Peabody College for TeachersBox 151

Nashville, Tennessee 37203


The program at the Demonstration and Re-search Center for Early Education (DARCEE) isdesigned for preschool children of low-income,so-called disadvantaged family backgrounds.DARCEE's goal is to teach the skills and atti-tudes which, according to the developers, mostmiddle-class children acquire before enteringschool but which low-income children generallylack.

Another major focus of the DARCEE programis a parent-training component, the goal ofwhich is to improve parents' ability to developthe specified skills and attitudes in their chil-dren at home.


The developers identify three classes of skillswhich they believe to be essential to later suc-cess in school: sensory (perceptual) skills, ab-stracting and mediating (conceptual) skills, andresponse skills. Sensory skills include orientingand attentional skills, discriminatory skills, re-lational skills, and sequential skills. Abstractingand mediating skills include concepts (e.g.,color, shape, and size) as well as the ability tomake certain associations (e.g., labels with ob-jects), classification, sequence, and criticalthinking (e.g., predict or make inferences).Response skills include verbal and motor skills.Skill development is organized around unitthemes such as "Autumn" or "Home and Fam-ily" on the assumption that a theme makeslearning more meaningful to the child.

The attitudes that DARCEE tries to developinclude positive self-identity, independence,persistence, the ability to delay gratification,identification with achieving adult role models,the ability to follow directions, and positiveattitudes toward own and other social andethnic groups.

21

The program uses standard manipulativematerials and teacher-made materials (orparent-made toys). No student materials areavailable from DARCEE; however, the develop-ers provide a list of suggested items such asflannel boards, peg boards, beads, blocks, puz-zles, games, Peabody language kits, house-keeping items, and dress-up clothes.

Paperback guides to teaching four of theunits"All About Me," "Autumn," "Home andFamily," and "Farm Animals"are availablefrom DARCEE. Seven others are expected to beready by late 1972. Each unit guide or resourceunit contains the concepts and skills to be de-veloped, suggested activities, and directionsfor teacher-made materials.


The DARCEE instructional strategy is to buildskills step-by-step through a sequence movingfrom simple to complex, and sensory-motor toconceptual-verbal. Every activity is designed todevelop one or more aspects of specific skillsand attitudes. The choice and sequencing ofactivities for the development of a given skillare left to the teacher.

Parent Involvement

Parent involvement is the other major com-ponent of the DARCEE program. Believing thatthe mother's role is crucial in the child's earlydevelopment, the staff has designed a trainingprogram to encourage the mother's active inter-est in her child's education and to equip herwith skills to make the home a better learningenvironment. There are two alternative modelsfor parent involvement, the home visitor pro-gram and the classroom plan.

Under the first plan, each home visitor (anexperienced preschool teacher or a trainedparaprofessional) is assigned 20 parents ofDARCEE preschoolers. She works with four

children a day, either individually or as a group.She first tries to develop the parent's feeling ofself-worth and ability to teach her child. Latershe demonstrates techniques: how to conductdramatic activities and counting songs, howto read a story and ask questions about the pic-tures, how to use ordinary household items andactivities as learning experiences. A manual forhome visitors is available from DARCEE. Underthe classroom plan, the parent spends 1 day aweek for several months observing the classfrom behind a one-way window, while a trainerexplains what is going on. After each observa-tion period, parents are taught to use some ofthe materials. Later they are introduced into theclassroom as participants and eventually learnto plan, implement, and evaluate activities fora small group of children.


DARCEE conducts 1-week orientation insti-tutes and 2-week training institutes for teach-ers. Paraprofessionals may also attend theseinstitutes. Materials for training classroomteaching assistants, aides, and home visitorsare available from DARCEE.


No special equipment is required. Standardpreschool furniture and equipment is usuallyadequate. The classrooms should be staffed bya lead teanher and at least one teaching assist-ant. The costs of the program should be com-parable to that of a standard nursery schoolexcept where more personnel are required.

A manual for home visitors is available fromDARCEE at $2. Four resource units for teachingfour of the 11 units are also available at $1.50each. Seven more resource units are expectedto be available by late 1972.


The Early Training Project (1961) was theforerunner of the present model. One productof this project was a manual, Before First Grade(Gray, Klaus, et al., 1966), which sets forthskills and attitudes to be taught, suggests,activ-ities for teaching them, and provides a few

22

sample lessons for use in replicating themodel.

Since the openin of the first Early TrainingCenter in March 1966, seven groups of 20children have attended two of the centers for1 year. Two groups of 20 children have attendedthe third center for a 2-year program. In a 1970manuscript, the DARCEE director describedthe results as "modest but gratifying."

In December 1969 DARCEE released the re-port on the children in the Early Training Projectat the end of the fourth grade. The resultsshowed that the Early Training Project causeda fairly sharp increase on the Binet and thePeabody Picture Vocabulary Test at first. In

later tests the scores leveled off and slowly de-clined. The experimental children remained"significantly superior" to the conirol groups onintelligence tests over the years, but there wasno significant difference between the groupson language (PPVT) and achievement (Metro-politan) by the end of the fourth grade. "Thereis a slight but parallel decline across groups,"state the developers.


DARCEE grew out of the Early Training Proj-ect, an intervention program begun in 1961by faculty members of George Peabody Collegefor Teachers in Nashville, Tenn. Sixty blackchildren between the ages of 3112 and 4112composed the sample. The project was fundedby the National Institute for Mental Health, De-partment of Health, Education, and Welfare.Dr. Susan W. Gray, Professor of Psychology atPeabody and presently director of DARCEE,codirected the project with Rupert A. Klaus.

In early 1966, the present Demonstration andResearch Center for Early Education was estab-lished under grants from the Office of Educa-tion and Office of Economic Opportunity to re-fine the model and curriculum of the EarlyTraining Project. DARCEE's mission was three-fold: demonstration, research, and training.

At present there is one DARCEE Early Train-ing Center on the Peabody campus. Prior to fall1970 there were two other centers, one inNorth Nashville and one in a rural area, Fair-view, Tenn. Both have been turned over tocommunity groups to operate Head Start pro-grams on the DARCEE modelone to a group

L 26

working with the Tennessee Department ofLabor and the other to a Community ActionProgram group.

During the 1971-72 school year the DARCEEmodel will be disseminated through the CentralMidwestern Regional Educational Laboratory

ri

(CEMREL) in connection with its National Pro-gram on Early Childhood Education. Reading,(Pa.), Louisville (Ky.), and the Mille Lacs(Minn.) Chippewa reservation will be the sitesfor the new DARCEE model classrooms underthis program.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION LEARNING SYSTEM

Project Director: Shari Ned ler

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory800 Brazos

Austin, Texas 78701


The Early Childhood Education Learning Sys-tem includes a 3-year sequential program forchildren ages 3-5, a 2-year sequential programfor ages 4-5, and a 1-year program for 5-year-olds who have not attended preschool before.The program is currently under developmentat the Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory in Austin, Tex. The program has twocomponents: one for low-income urban andrural black children, the other for low-incomeurban and migrant Mexican-Americans.

The goal of the program is to alleviate thedifficulties low-income children usually meet inschool. The program development staff believesthat many such children never receive the fullbenefit of public education because the schooldoes not build on their strengths. The staffhcpes that its program will help children to"acquire the educational experiences and theverbal and social skills necessary to preparethem for formal education."


The program for black children and its bi-lingual counterpart for Mexican-Americansstress verbal and reasoning skills and healthyself-concepts. Both provide training in visualand auditory skills, motor skills, English, andproblem solving and reasoning skills. Withvisual training, the child is expected to progressfrom "sensation" through "perception" to "con-ceptualization." Eye-hand coordination and per-ceiving one's position in space are typicaltopics. Activities in "auditory location" and"perception of rhythm" are typical of auditorytraining. Motor skills development stressesbody awareness and visual coordination.

The purpose of the language activities is todevelop linguistic competence. Lessons to de-velop vocabulary and control of sentence struc-ture are presented in a prescribed sequence.The teacher is provided with explicit instruc-

tions for presenting language concepts, and thespecific tasks for children are described indetail.

In the bilingual component for Mexican-American children, all activities are presentedfirst in Spanish. When the children demonstratemastery of concepts in their native language,the same concepts are presented in English,their second language. The program includesactivities to train the children to understandand produce simple language forms in theirnative language and in English. The developersbelieve that these activities should lead chil-dren to describe, narrate, and generalize theirown and others' actions.

For each training area in both componentsthere are planned learning activities, sequencedfrom simple to more complex tasks. Each lessonprescription contains a clearly stated behavioralobjective, a description of the materials neededto teach the lesson, and an outlined proceduredesigned to help the child reach the desiredobjective.

The program provides the teacher with apackage which contains a curriculum guide,pictures, puzzles, transparencies, audiovideotapes, and all of the manipulative materialschildren :ieed for the prescribed activities. Fromher supply the teacher selects student materialsfor specific purposes.


The major teaching strategy employed bythe program is "role modeling," which has beenadapted from the theories of Jerome Kagan.Role modeling is based on the belief that chil-dren want to be like adults and that the be-havior of the teacher is an important motivatingforce in the classroom. The program staff seesthe entire classroom environment as dependenton the teacher. They state that the teacher, inserving as a "model," should exhibit "enthusi-asm, buoyancy, commitment to learning, a can-do attitude, affection, warmth, concern (with-

24'8

out sentimental overtones), fairness, and flex-ibility."

The staff recommends a class of 18-25 chil-dren to one teacher and one assistant teacher.The children should be divided into three orfour groups which alternate direct instructionand independent study. The staff suggests thatthe room Le arranged with "learning areas,"for example, a language skills area and a largegroup activity area.

The following description of a lesson inauditory training will demonstrate a typicallearning activity. This lesson is called "Followthe Sound." The behavioral objective is statedin these terms: "Upon hearing the sound of thedrum and being told by the teacher to 'walk tothe sound of the drum,' the blindfolded childwill walk to the sound." The participating chil-dren sit on the floor in a circle. The teacherexplains and demonstrates the procedures:one child is to be blindfolded and one child isto hit the drum. The teacher checks to see thatno obstructions are in the way and then thechildren begin the lesson.

A continual testing process enables theteacher to gear the learning activities to theneeds of the children. Before each new skillarea is introduced, a pretest is given and theresults diagnosed. After instruction a posttestis given to determine what the child learned. Ifthe lesson objectives have been met, the childproceeds to independent study or a new activ-ity. If he demonstrates difficulty, he is retaught.Unit tests and mastery tests (covering units)are also administered. All tests are providedby the program.

Parent Involvement

The parent-community component is de-signed to "involve parents in the education oftheir children through the development of aworking partnership between the school and theparents." Educational materials for parents touse with their children are designed to reinforceand extend concepts introduced in the class-room. The staff has also developed assessmenttechniques to measure parent participation andteaching effectiveness.


The project has a model for training person-nel to implement the programs under develop-

25

ment. This model is being pilot tested. Schoolsinvolved in the pilot testing are provided withsummer workshops, consultant services, andaudiovisual training materials.

A training model for paraprofessional aidesor teaching assistants is also being developed.A text, Handbook for Paraprofessionals in Mi-grant Education, is undergoing pilot testing.


No specific facilities or equipment areneeded to implement the program, only State-recommended traditional early childhood mate-rials. There is a list of suggested supplementalequipment to use for reinforcement purposes.All other materials are supplied by the program.

Currently the program is available to localschool districts and educational centers forpilot and field testing. The approximate costfor one level of the program (e.g. Level I, Bi-lingual 3-year-olds) is $1,100 per classroom.This cost includes training materials, con-sultants' fees, and instructional materials; itdoes not include the teachers' and aides' sal-aries or classroom furniture and supplies.


The Early Childhood Education Learning Sys-tem staff has identified a growing body of re-search data indicating that children who gothrough preschool are bitter prepared for for-mal schooling at age 6 than those who have notbeen in preschool. The staff also cites the find-ing of Elizabeth Peal and Wallace Lambert(1962) that the earlier a child is exposed to asecond language the easier it is to master.Among the other theorists who influenced thedesign of the program are Jerome Bruner, CarlBereiter, and Marion Blank.

The Early Childhood Education Learning Sys-tem has been through 3 years of design anddata evaluation with four populations: urbanMexican-American (three sites), migrant Mex-ican-American (two sites), rural black (one site),and urban black (one site). The program hasbeen pilot tested with the above populations inSan Antonio, McAllen, Galveston, Edinburg,Dallas, and Fort Worth, Tex.; Bossier andCaddo Parishes, La.; and Somerton, Ariz.

According to the developers, the programhas undergone a detailed evaluation process

29

which includes teacher checklists, oral confer-ences, and observations in addition to the pupilperformance data obtained by testing. The de-velopers state that results from the San An-tonio site have demonstrated gains in the intel-lectual performance level of the experimentalgroups.


The Early Childhood program was initiated inthe spring of 1967 when, in determining itsoverall focus, the Southwest Educational Labor-atory decided to develop a preschool programin addition to programs for grade K-6. It was feltthat "special needs of various cultural groupscould be met more effectively by beginning[training] earlier." At that time there was alsoa growing public awareness of the need forearly childhood education, and this also influ-enced the laboratory's decision. Operationalclasses were set up in three educational devel-opment centers located in San Antonio, Tex.(for urban Mexican-Americans), McAllen, Tex.

(for migrant Americans), and Fort Worth, Tex.(for urban Mexican-American and black chil-dren). A fourth center was located in Conway,Ark., to develop staff training materials. Thiscenter, the Southwest Center for Early Child-hood Personnel Development, is a cooperativeeffort of the Laboratory and the State College ofArkansas.

Each center or school implementing the pro-gram must manage and supervise the classes.Laboratory personnel serve as consultants inorganizing the program. A central staff in Aus-tin coordinates all schools using the system.

At the present time the four alternative pro-grams (for urban blacks, rural blacks, urbanMexican-Americans, and migrant Mexican-Americans) are still undergoing design, testing,and revision as the results of the pilot schoolsare analyzed. The sequential bilingual programfor 3- and 4-year-olds will be ready for generaldissemination by September 1972. No date hasyet been set for the dissemination of the otherprograms.

EAST HARLEM BLOCK SCHOOLS

Project Director: Judith Macaulay

East Harlem Block Schools94 East 111th



The East Harlem Block Schools in New YorkCity include two day-care centers serving 105children; an elementary school enrolling 100children in grades one, two, three, four, andfive; and a tutoring program involving 150 chil-dren. The developers plan to add one gradeeach year to the elementary school, extendingit eventually to grade eight. The block schoolswere designed to serve children of preschooland primary school ages. The ethnic populationof the schools reflects that of the surroundingcommunity-70 percent Puerto Rican, 20 per-cent black, and 10 percent white. Most of thechildren are bilingual and all are from low-in-come families.

The schools were established by parents whofelt that in order for their children to receive agood education it was imperative that they (theparents) design and control the educational en-vironment. It was felt that schools establishedand run by parents would create "continuity inattitudes and relationships between home andschool." They saw the necessity for setting edu-cational goals for their children and hiring staffand teachers who were responsive to thesegoals and accountable to the parents.

The educational goals set by parents wereintentionally broad because the project wasconceived as an institutional rather than a cur-riculum reform. The concerns were that thechildren make clear and definite progress inreading, writing, and mathematics, and thatteachers encourage and work individually withthose children who seemed to have no interestor little ability in academic work. In addition toacademic progress, the program is also de-signed with the intention that children developcertain attitudes about themselves. The parents"want the children to learn to trust themselves. . . to have the sense that problems can beworked out through the use of their own intel-ligence . . . to learn to be responsible for their

.1:

own behavior, to respect themselves and otherpeople, and to be curious and confident aboutthe world."


There are no prescribed curriculums for theEast Harlem Block Schools; curriculum develop-ment is a continual process. The teachers de-velop their own instructional units, teachingmaterials, and methods of evaluation with helpfrom staff, parents, and children.


Students are encouraged to make inquiriesand discoveries on their own. Many activities ofthe school center around students' active par-ticipation in real life situations. For example,students learn about units of measurementwhen they are engaged in a woodworking proj-ect.

Parent Involvement

The parents form the backbone of the ad-ministration of the East Harlem Block Schools."The Board of Directors consists only of parentsof children enrolled in the schools; parents have. . . final control over all policy, finances, andpersonnel decisions." Over half of the full-timestaff are parents and community people, manyof whom were formerly on welfare.

Parents are intimately involved with the dailyactivities at the schools. Parent-teachers areregarded as on equal footing with professionalteachers. All staff meetings include parents,and all decisions are made with their full par-ticipation.


Both teachers and parent aides are exposedto the same preservice and inservice trainingprocedures, including the following:

27 : a3 t

Curriculum workshops and discussions ofeducational policies during a 2-week ori-entation period in September.Workshops at other agencies attended ona voluntary basis.Day-long staff meetings scheduled oncea month for meeting with consultants.Visits to other schools.Ongoing supervision from education direc-tors.

There is also a high school equivalency andcollege-preparatory course for paraprofession-als.


For a class of 20 students in the day-carecenters, there are one professional teacher andtwo parent teachers who usually speak bothEnglish and Spanish. For a class of 20 childrenin the elementary school, there are one teacherand one parent coteacher. No special equip-ment or facilities are needed.

The day-care centers cost approximately $2,-000 per child per year. (This is somewhat lowerthan the average annual per-child cost in NewYork City.)

The basic cost per child per year in the ele-mentary school is $1,100also slightly lessthan the public school cost.


The British Infant Schools, John Holt, andespecially Caleb Gattegno and William Glasserhave influenced the schools. The staff has con-siderable training in Gattegno's institutes. Theresulting philosophy of the schools combines"an emphasis on intellectual development withan awareness of individual children's needs."

No specific evaluation data are available. Areport by the executive director of the EastHarlem Block Schools to the Carnegie Founda-tion in January 1970 cited individual cases ofmarked academic improvement among childrenwho had been failing when enrolled in publicand parochial schools. The developers believethat any significant evaluation should examinethe importance of the students' sense of be-longing, the changes in the lives of families,and the strengthening of community cohesive-ness. They also believe that the positive feelings

which they state their students have towardschool should be evaluated for their implica-tions.

Program History and Present Development

The idea for the East Harlem Block Schoolswas conceived in 1965 when a group of parentsbecame concerned over the quality of educationtheir children were receiving and decided thatit was up to them to do something to change it.They obtained a grant from the U.S. Office ofEconomic Opportunity to establish a "bicultural,community-controlled nursery school programwhich would employ and train a maximum num-ber of community people and . . . serve low-income families in a selected area." The nurseryopened in a storefront in September of 1965with 30 neighborhood children of preschool ageand two carefully chosen teachers. In Septem-ber of 1968, because of cutbacks in 0E0 funds,the nurseries, which had grown considerably,applied for funds and became the first parent-controlled day care centers funded by the Cityof New York.

Because the parents became anxious abouthaving their chldren leave the nursery schoolonly to enroll in a public school first grade, theyestablished a day school for the elementaryyears. In September of 1967 a first-grade classwas started. A second grade was added in 1968,a third grade in 1969, a fourth grade in 1970,and a fifth grade in 1971. They expect to add agrade a year until the school provides for gradesone through eight. The East Harlem TutoringProject, formerly run by the Friends ServiceCommittee, was incorporated into the East Har-lem Block Schools in 1967. Presently the EastHarlem Block Schools consists of three proj-ects: the nurseries, the day school, and thetutoring project.

As an institutional model, the East HarlemBlock Schools has helped two other schools (inGreeley, Colorado, and Rough Rock, Arizona)to establish parent-controlled educational en-vironments. A former director states:

The Block Schools are visited ap-proximately weekly by communitygroups interested in following the ex-ample of starting parent-controlledday-care centers or .`Jhoo/s. Parent-controlled day-care centers are grow-

ing all over New York. The BlockSchools were the first and are thelargest, and as such have been in-cluded on several policy-making com-missions for New York City, includingthe Mayor's Task Force for Child De-

velopment. They are now participat-ing in another official task force todevelop new guidelines for staffingpatterns and credentialling in NewYork's early childhood program.

EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER OPEN EDUCATION MODEL

Project Director: George E. Hein

Education Development Center55 Chapel Street

Newton, Massachusetts 02160


The EDC program is designed to help schoolsdevelop classroom environments which aretailored to the individual needs of children andthe talents of teachers. The kind of classroomenvironment that EDC promotes is often re-ferred to as the open education classroomwhere children plan their own activities underthe guidance of teachers, are free to exploreand pursue individual interests, and work inways best suited to individual styles. It is char-acterized by the following: there is an abund-ance of varied physical materials to stimulateexploration, activities arise from interests ratherthan from a prescribed curriculum, groupingsare flexible, and there are "few obvious sep-arations" between subjects. EDC maintains acorps of skilled advisers to help a school de-velop and maintain this open education envi-ronment. Specific instructional objectives in-clude:

Improved ability to express thought andfeelings verbally and in writing

Growth of encoding and decoding skills

Improved ability to generalize and formconcepts from a variety of experiences

Growth of problem-solving and problem-finding abilities

Improved coordination and control of sen-sory motor operations

Greater self-awareness and self-control

Improved self-image in relation to prob-lem-solving and intergroup relationships

Increased levels of aspiration

Increased reliance on intrinsic rather thanextrinsic motivation

Development of positive attitudes towardsschool.


The EDC approach emphasizes mathematicalconcepts and comunication skills, such as read-ing and speech. However, EDC is opposed to theidea of a given body of knowledge which everychild must acquire at the same time, in thesame order, and by the same means. EDC en-courages children to become self-motivatingand able to set their own goals, and to workindependently to achieve them.

The EDC open education classroom containsa wide variety of materials. In addition to com-mercial materials, EDC recommends commonthingssuch as sand, lumber, cardboardboxes, and assorted "junk"considering thesematerials as "the most basic and essential partof the material environment." Although no par-ticular items are essential, EDC provides an ex-tensive list of suggested materials for art, sci-ence, word work, dramatic play, mathematics,and reading.

A number of one-sheet activity ideas havebeen developed by the EDC staff and teachersusing the EDC model; however, there is no pre-determined curriculum.


The EDC approach, like the British InfantSchools approach, is based on the concept thatlearning is "rooted in experience," and thatknowledge is important when it is relevant andput to use. Therefore, children in the EDC openeducation classroom initiate a wide variety ofactivities based on their own personal interestsand experiences. They may work independentlyor in small groups. The teacher performs a sup-portive role, providing assistance when it isneeded.

The open education classroom is more in-formal than the traditional classroom; that is,time schedules are more flexible, there is agreat deal more overlap among subject areas,

30 34

and team teaching is common. Also, learning isnot confined to a classroom; children movefreely from one room to another, and engage inactivities in other parts of the school grounds,such as the schoolyard or the cloakroom.

Parent Involvement

Follow Through guidelines specify thatschools using the EDC model organize PolicyAdvisory Committees, consisting of local par-ents. Under this arrangement, EDC has heldseminars for parents, provided opportunitiesfor parents to visit the schools, and employedparents as instructional aids.


EDC points out that the open education class-room probably means more, not less, work forthe teacher. To provide ongoing support, EDCadvisers hold seven to nine workshops a yearat the Newton center. These are designed totrain both teachers and aides. In addition toworkshops at EDC, arrangements may be madeto provide on-site training for local teachersand aides.


No special equipment, materials, or facilitiesare required to implement the program. EDCstresses the importance of having a variety ofmaterials rather than any single item. Morecritical than materials, equipment, or facilitiesis the need for skilled teachers.

31

Estimates of cost will vary; however, EDCmaintains that equipping the open educationclassroom should cost no more than equippingtraditional classes. EDC recommends a budgetof $1,200 for a classroom new to the programand $600 for a classroom already in the pro-gram.


The British Infant Schools approach hasevolved over a period of 25 years. Those in-volved in the approach consider it perpetuallyin development.

There are, at present, no evaluation dataavailable from EDC-sponsored schools. The Of-fice of Education has commissioned the Stan-ford Research Institute to conduct a nationalevaluation of the major Follow Through models,including the EDC Open Education model. Re-sults will not be released until 1973.


EDC's interest in the British Infant Schoolsapproach began in the midsixties when severalstaff members paid unofficial visits to Englandto observe the infant schools there. During1967-68, Len Seeley, formerly a Leicestershireadviser, served as director of the regionallaboratory at EDC; and he, William Hull, andDavid Armingtom applied for and received Fol-low Through funding to set up open educationclassrooms in the United States. Currently, EDChas 21 trained advisers serving 10 school dis-tricts around the country.

ENGELMANN-BECKER MODEL

Project Directors: Siegfried EngelmannWesley Becker

Department of Special EducationUniversity of Oregon

Eugene, Oregon 97403


The Engelmann-Becker Model, for childrenfrom preschool through the third grade, is anaccelerated academic program which focuseson the development of skills in the areas ofreading, language, and arithmetic. The programaims to break the poverty cycle by providingchildren with the necessary academic skills tocompete in the public schools.


Instructional objectives are specified in theDistar curriculum materials, available fromScience Research Associates. Two levels ofDistar materials are available in the areas ofreading, language, and arithmetic. Each levelcontains sufficient materials for 1 year of in-struction. The Distar materials break down skillsinto numerous small easy steps, arranged in apredetermined sequence. Children are placedanywhere in that sequence depending on theirentering skill level. Tests embedded in theDistar materials enable frequent monitoring ofstudent achievement.

In addition to student materials, Distar in-cludes complete guides and presentation booksfor teachers.


The Engelmann-Becker class is normallystaffed by a teacher and two aides. Childrenare taught in groups of from three to eight ac-cording to homogeneity or skills mastered. Theyare seated in chairs (not desks) in a close semi-circle around the teacher or aide so that at-tention is constantly focused on the teacher.

Lessons are presented at an acceleratedpace, with a great deal of verbal praise andexchange. The following is an excerpt from theteacher's guide to teach a beginning` reading

32

exercise. (Note. that verbatim directions areprovided for the. teacher.)

Objective: Teaching mmm as in "him"Task I: Identify new sounda. "Everybody, look at the book." (Praise

children wno look.)b. (Point to letter m in book.) "Mmm. This

is mmm. Say mmm. Good."c. (Point to picture of ice cream cone in

book.) "Is this mmm?"d. (Wait, Praise the response "no.") "What

is this?"e. (Trace m.) "Mmm, say mmm." (Wait.)

"Good."f. (Point to letter m in book.) "Look at the

book. Mmm. This sound is mmm. Sayit loud. Mmm."

g. (Wait.) "Good."h. "Look at the book." (Point to a picture

of an ice cream cone in book.) "Here'smmm."

i. (Wait.) "You fooled me! What is it?"

Parent Involvement

Parents may be involved in a number ofways. They may be trained to become teacheraides in the classroom; they may learn to helptheir children with "take-home" sheets, or theymay take part in a child management programwhich aims to help parents understand theconcepts and applications of reinforcers andpunishers in everyday life relationships betweenparents and their children.

Materials for parents are available from thedevelopers.


The developers offer adopters of the model2 weeks' preservice training plus continuousinservice training. Preservice training is usuallyconducted in the summer at the local school.

. 36

Materials for the 2-week preservice trainingare available from the developers.


With the exception of movable chairs andspace for small group work, no special physicalarrangements, facilities, or equipment areneeded.

The cost of Distar materials is as follows:

Reading I Teacher kit $ 45Student set of 10 60

Reading II Teacher kitStudent set of 10

Language I Teacher kitStudent set of 10

Language II Teacher kitStudent set of 10

Arithmetic I Teacher kitStudent set of 10

Arithmetic II Teacher kitStudent set of 10

Distar materials are available from:Science Research Associates (SRA)

259 East Erie StreetChicago, III. 60611

6595

13530

15039

9070

12090

33


An academically oriented preschool programstarted by Carl Bereiter and Siegfried Engel-mann in 1964 at the University of Illinois wasthe forerunner of the present Engelmann-Becker Model. Evaluation of the program hasbeen ongoing. In 1967, the developers com-pleted a 2-year evaluation study; in 1969 agroup of Western Michigan University educa-tors made a comparative study of the Engel-mann-Becker Model and a traditional enrich-ment program. Both these studies produceddata favorable to the Engelmann-Becker pro-gram in terms of student 10 and achievement.


Carl Bereiter and Siegfried Engelmann werethe originators of the program. In 1967,Bereiter left the program and Wesley Beckerjoined the staff. In 1968 the program appliedfor and received funding to begin operation asa Follow Through Model. The program has re-cently moved to the University of Oregon atEugene, where it sponsored up to 8,000 chil-dren in 20 school districts in 1972.

37

FLORIDA PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM

Project Director: Ira J. Gordon

Institute for Development of Human ResourcesUniversity of Florida

Gainesville, Florida 32601


The Florida Parent Education Program is aFollow Through (kindergarten through thirdgrade) model, developed by Ira Gordon of theInstitute for Development of Human Resources,University of Florida at Gainesville. The modelis based on the premise that parental behavior,such as maternal teaching behavior, and thequality and amount of verbal stimulation havea strong influence on the intellectual and per-son& development of the child. Thus the majorthrust of the program is to educate parents touse skills that will improve their children's in-tellectual behavior, self-esteem, and motivation.The developers believe that parents can helptheir children achieve these goals if they them-selves can acquire some teaching competenciesand self-assurance in their ability to effectchange. To accomplish this, the Florida pro-gram hires and trains community people towork as parent educators who in turn makeweekly home visits to teach parents skills to useat home with their children.


The Florida Parent Education model is stillat the developmental stage. Many of the learn-ing activitiesdesigned to reflect the child'sfamily life style, value system, and goalsarebeing developed and tested with the help ofparents, parent educators, teachers, and theprogram staff. Parents are also encouraged todesign learning activities with common house-hold items for use in the classroom.


During weekly home visits, parent educatorsdemonstrate and teach parents tasks to im-prove a child's intellectual abilities and socialand personal growth. They help parents to esti-mate the ability of their children, understandthe purpose of each learning task, and teach itto their children. The parent educators spend

34

half of their time in the classroom as teachingaides; they become the liaison agents betweenthe home and the school.

Parent Involvement

Parents are an integral part of the program.They are involved in educating their own chil-dren at home, are encouraged to take part indesigning learning tasks, may participate asparent volunteers in the classroom, may betrained as parent educators, and may be activeas members of the Policy Advisory Committee,an advisory body consisting of parents in thecommunity.


Preservice and inservice training are pro-vided for teachers and parent educators alike.Preservice training is conducted during a sum-mer workshop at the University of Florida aswell as at a 1-week workshop in the local com-munity. Inservice training involves 2 days amonth of on-site consultation provided by theprogram staff. During these 2 days, the con-sultant meets with the Policy Advisory Com-mittee, conducts inservice workshops with localteachers and parent educators, and reviewsvideotapes of classroom and home sessions.After each visit, the consultant reports on find-ings and recommendations to the teachers andparent educators and to the program staff inFlorida.


Usually a classroom is staffed with a certi-fied teacher, two parent educators, and otherparent volunteers. However, since the model istailored to meet the needs of each participatingcommunity, schools that wish to use the FloridaParent Education Program should contact thedirector for all implementation requirementsand related costs.

38


Success of the program is measured on thebasis of its efforts to increase parental com-petency and self-esteem, improve children's in-tellectual abilities and self-image, and providethe schools with the capacity for institutionalChange. A number of instruments to measurethe effectiveness of components of the programare being developed and tested. Many of theinstruments are of the observation and progressreport variety rather than standardized tests.

The Florida Parent Education Program grewout of several infant stimulation projects di-rected by Ira Gordon since 1966. In these earlystudies, paraprofessionals were trained to visithomes and teach parents to provide stimulationfor their 3- to 24-month-old children. Resultsfrom these studies showed that children ex-posed to the parent stimulation obtained super-

ior scores on infant mental developmentalscales compared with children not included inthe study, and that mothers involved in theproject showed more self-confidence in theirabilities than they did before they entered theproject. The developers feel that they havedemonstrated a workable scheme of parent ed-ucation using paraprofessionals as teachers ofparents in their own homes.


During the 1968-69 school year, the FloridaParent Education Program became a FollowThrough model for children from kindergartento third grade. The model is presently beingimplemented in 11 communities throughout thecountry. Plans are being made to use the ap-proach to establish day-ore services.

THE INTERDEPENDENT LEARNING MODEL

Project Directors: Donald Wolff and Jack Victors

Institute for Developmental StudiesSchool of Education, New York University

300 East BuildingWashington Square



The Interdependent Learning Model is de-signed for children in K-3 Follow Throughclasses. The goals of the model are to helpchildren from low-income families acquirelearning skills, especially social and communi-cation (language) skills, that the developers be-lieve would offer them more alternatives intheir lives. The program's main concern is todesign a structure for facilitating group inter-action and developing individual and group in-dependence, not to identify specific lesson ob-jectives, since the model can be molded tomeet any kind of lesson plan.

The developers believe that social and cog-nitive skills should be built in as part of thecurriculum and that, if students are to becomesuccessful learners, they must be given anincreased voice in their learning situation bycontrolling their own groups, activities, andscheduling. They believe that the small-groupgame format is ideal for developing cognitive,problem-solving and communication skills since(1) children like to play games, (2) instructionalgames provide learning sequences in graduatedsteps, (3) game rules provide a pattern for in-teraction, and (4) language is an integral partof play.

Content and MaterialsThe basic feature of the model is the use of

"Transactional Instructional Games"transac-tional because they require social and verbaltransactions among students. The Interdepend-ent Learning Model can theoretically operatewithin any curriculum or standard text byadapting it to the Instructional Game format.Games are usually "table type," involvingboards, blocks, dice, or cards; pantomimegames are also used. Most of the game ma-terials are teacher-made, based on prototypesdeveloped by the developers. However, teachers

36

are also encouraged to make up their owngames. Concentration is a typical game formatthat teachers can adopt to the curriculum.Commercially available games produced by thedevelopers include Language Lotto and Matrixgames.

In addition to a list of suggested games, thedeveloper provides teacher guides in three cur-riculum areas: reading (Direct Approach to De-coding), communications (ENACTED), and aseries of games designed to teach mathematicsskills. The Direct Approach to Decoding Pro-gram (D.A.D.) is a decoding approach that canbe integrated with most reading programs. Ac-cording to its authors, the program teachesbasic phonics skills through teaching lettersounds, auditory blending, and phonic analysis.When the child has mastered these phonicsskills, he applies them to decoding, combiningphonic analysis and blending, sight-word recog-nition, reading, and generalized word-attack.The program is detailed and highly structuredto enable teachers to better understand thecomponents of reading, but the teacher candevelop new games (with the help of programconsultants) to supplement the guide. Theteacher may also integrate the D.A.D. programwith a basal reader.

The ENACTED communications guide uses acreative dramatics approach. The programstresses affective and cognitive development;the child should acquire knowledge of humanbehavior leading to the ability to monitor andmodify his responses. The guide begins withnonverbal communication (kinesics) and movesto role playing in hypothetical situations. Likethe D.A.D. program, the ENACTED curriculumuses a teacher-directed, structured, and se-quential approach; teachers are provided de-tailed lesson plans and game suggestions.

A 600-page mathematics manual offers sug-gested games that can be used with any mathe-

40

matics curriculum. If a teacher already knowswhat the objectives for his curriculum are tobe, he can go to the manual and find games toreinforce the lessons. An experienced teachercan use the manual as the basis of a kinder-garten through third grade mathematics pro-gram. The developers are completing a fourthprogram (EMERGENT) which will be availablein fall 1972.


In the classroom, learning occurs in inde-pendent, small-group game activities. These ac-tivities are structured by the games' own rulesrather than by teacher edict, so that the chil-dren may develop social and learning interac-tion among themselves, direct their own learn-ing, and develop initiative and autonomy.

The teacher has two instructional functions:he tries to promote a group's ability to playgames autonomously without his intervention,and he instructs directly in the decoding andENACTED (role play) curriculums and in othersubject areas in order to get initial skills acrossto the students. How this is done depends onthe teacher's instructional methods. Generally,though, after the teacher has introduced mainideas, the students are divided into smallgroups in which the teacher introduces thegame by participating initially as a member ofthe group. The games are then turned over tothe children to play on their own (though theteacher or assistant may occasionally interveneor introduce new content). Sometimes thegroup can be organized with individuals whoare at different levels of competence, with themore advanced being able,to help those whoneed it. It is hoped that with increased sophisti-cation children will be able to form their owngroups, plan what they wish to accomplish,choose their own preferred activities, and keeprecords of what they have done.

A game frequently used is Concentration. Ateacher can use it in sevsral ways; for example,the teacher makes 52 brightly colored cardswith each letter of the alphabet colored on twocardsforming 26 pairs. The children mix upthe cards and place them face down, each on adifferent square on the playing board. The ob-ject of the game is to get two cards that match.If a child gets a match he keeps the cards; ifnot he turns the cards back over and lets the

37

next player have a turn. Each child has to saywhat letter he turned over: "I got a W." If hedoesn't know what the letter is, the child canask someone to help him.

Program staff are currently developing andrefining tests or checklists to help measure stu-dent progress. One kind of evaluation instru-ment under development is an observationalchecklist where language behavior, game be-havior, and teacher behavior can be recordedand assessed. At the present, there are threesuch checklists being used: decoding checklistsgiven weekly, D.A.D. Reading Criterion Testgiven at the end of the year, and Matrix gameschecklist. Standardized tests are given twice ayear but this is more a requirement of theschool or district rather than a part of themodel. Also available are a Math Checklist inwhich the developers have listed all the majorobjectives for mathematics and a test to meas-ure each of the objectives, and d Math Diagnos-tic Test for grades K-3.

Parent Involvement

Paid parent workers (or family workers), pro-vided for under Follow Through guidelines, areused to teach the games approach to parentgroups. They primarily serve as an informationresource, but also help make classroom mater-ials, such as instructional games, and serve asteaching aides in the classroom. Parent volun-teers are also encouraged to help make gamesand be classroom aides.


Teachers and aides are trained in the sameway, in small groups. The developers want theteachers to develop the same sense of controlover their learning as they want the students toachieve. Once a technique has been demon-strated by the training staff, the teachers andaides are organized into small groups to discussand/or practice the new technique. In this waythe teacher understands the nature of learningthrough group interaction. The developers traina core of school personnel to help teachers withproblems and to carry on training sessionswhen the staff consultants are not present.There is no standardized approach to training.Topics for training sessions depend on the sitesand needs of trainees. Preservice training is

41

done before the beginning of the school year;emphasis is placed on defining the teacher'srole in the classroom, creating and evaluatinggames, and planning and carrying out-changesin the classroom. On-site workshops are held 4to 5 days a month. Teachers and aides worktogether discussing problems, making newgames, and exchanging ideas with other groups.Consultants in reading, mathematics, drama,etc., are also available to individual schools.


The only requirement is that the classroombe equipped with tables and chairs, rather thandesks, and with adequate movable shelvingwhich can be used as storage and room divid-ers. Each movable shelving unit can cost aschool $50 to $100. The only required mater-ials are the Language Lotto and the Matrixgames which are available from Appleton-Cen-tury-Crofts at a cost of $40 to $50 a set. For$70 per child a school can receive the DirectApproach to Decoding (D.A.D.) teacher's guide,ENACTED communications teacher's guide, themathematics game manual, and consultantservices. This is not a set fee; .the cost dependson the number of classrooms using their ma-terials. Consultant services are available to anyschool at a fee that is worked out between thedevelopers and the staff. The teachers may alsowish to purchase commercially available games.The developers estimate that the yearly pur-chase of materials could vary in cost from $1to $30.

The model can work in classrooms wherethere is only one teacher; however, the develop-ers recommend the use of teaching aides or ateam teaching approach.


Eleven hundred Atlanta Follow Through stu-dents (K-3) are involved in a longitudinal studystarted in September 1969. Metropolitan Readi-ness or Achievement Tests are administered inpretest and posttest settings. Results show sig-nificant gains at kindergarten and grade one;at grades two and three, scores were "no betteror lower" than at comparison schools. Resultsof the developers' checklist testing are unavail-able at present. The developers are also in theprocess of developing a comprehensive obser-vation checklist to be used in spring 1972.

The January 23, 1971, issue of the ChristianScience Monitor reports that, in one Atlantaschool using the model, children's readinesstest scores improved dramatically. Whereas nopupils ranked "superior" before using themodel, 5 percent did so after the model hadbeen operating a year. Twenty-six percent com-pared to 68 percent of students in the previousyear were in the "low normal" category.


This program evolved from Lassar Gotkin'swork at the Institute for Developmental Studies;he was interested in developing a game formatfor learning. In 1966 the focus changed to in-clude designing a model that would make thechildren independent learners relying less onthe teacher, hence the name InterdependentLearner's Model.

This Follow Through Model is implementedin New York City; Atlanta, Ga.; and Lansing,Mich. A new communications curriculum, whichwill be called EMERGENT Communications, willbe available in fall 1972. The staff also plans ascience curriculum.

3L 42

PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT

Project Director: Lauren B. Resnick

Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213


The Primary Education Project (PEP) is cur-rently under development at the Learning Re-search and Development Center of the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh. The project is concernedwith the "development and evaluation of amodel of individualized education for youngchildren suitable for implementation in Ameri-can public schools." To date, experimental ma-terials for nursery school (ages 3 and 4) andfirst, second, and third grade (ages 6 and 7)have been developed. The program is designedfor an urban setting.

The developers hope to create an educationalenvironment that will benefit children from allbackgrounds. They believe two things are es-sential if schools are to meet children's learningneeds: the school must develop the child's con-fidence in his own ability to learn, and helphim to become an effective learner.

To meet these requirements, the project staffis developing a carefully sequenced curriculumdesigned to be adaptable to individual needsand abilities. The PEP curriculum outlines pre-determined steps the child is to go through athis own rate. If any difficulty is experienced ata step, the instruction is revised until the childhas mastered the assignment. According to therationale of the program, the child should thusnever equate difficulty with failure. This is im-portant because the child who experiences suc-cess is more confident and more motivated tolearn than the child who meets only failure inthe classroom.


PEP concentrates on basic skills and con-cepts that are prerequisites for future academicsubject matter. Three general classes of skillsare included in the PEP model: (1) orientingand attending skills, (2) perceptual and motorskills, and (3) conceptual and linguistic skills.t

4

The first set of skills includes the ability to con-centrate on a task and resist distractions, theability to follow directions, and the ability tofinish a task once it is started. These skills areintended to enable the child to function well inthe classroom. Perceptual and motor skills in-clude such things as directional movement,body control, and balance, as well as manipula-tive and visual and auditory discriminationskills. Conceptual and linguistic skills includeclassifying, reasoning, plan following, and earlymathematical processes. Linguistic skill devel-opment focuses on functional language (e.g.,asking for assistance, describing objects) andon increasing the accuracy of a child's vocabu-lary.

To teach these skills PEP has identified andsequenced specific learning objectives, orga-nizing them into four curriculum areas: begin-ning reading; introductory mathematics; classi-fication and language; and visual, auditory, andmotor development. There is a behavioral ob-jective for each lesson. These objectives are se-quenced by degree of difficultyfrom simpleto more difficult tasks. A few examples of ob.jectives are:

Orienting and Attending SkillsAttention span. The child can workat a given task for increasingly ex-tended periods of time.Focusing attention. The child candiscover and attend to relevant as-pects of a stimulus.

Motor SkillsBasic forms of movement. The childcan:

walk at various rates, at an evenpace

jump, landing simultaneously onboth feethop, on either footskip, gallop, run, etc.

43

Classification SkillsOne-dimensional sorting, withoutnoisy attributes. Given an array ofobjects which differ in only one at-tribute (e.g., color or function ortexture, etc.), sort them into separatecategories on the basis of that at-tribute.

The PEP curriculum requires continual diag-nosis of learning needs. Each child is testedfrequently. On the basis of the test results, theteacher prepares "prescriptions" or assign-ments, using such behavioral objectives as arelisted above. Assignments indicate the task tobe completed and the kinds of materials withwhich the child will work.

When the child completes his task, he istested again to see if he attained the objective.He is either given a new assignment if hedemonstrates he is ready, or assigned addi-tional work if his test shows the need. This con-tinual testing process insures that each childreceives instruction tailored to his own needs.A continuous record of each child's progress ismaintained, allowing the teacher to know pre-cisely at what "step" the child is.

As children finish the introductory PEP cur-riculums, they will enter revised versions of theIndividually Prescribed Instruction mathematicsand reading curriculums prepared for this pur-pose by the Learning Research and Develop-ment Center Staff.

Because the project is still in a develop-mental stage, PEP instructional materials arenot yet completed and fully tested or ready fordissemination.


The daily activities begin wth a "prescriptionwork period" in which the children work ontheir various assignments. During this periodat least one adult, either the teacher or an aide,circulates among the children offering guidanceand praise for work well done. The work periodis followed by an "exploratory period" in whichchildren choose their own activities from thevariety available to them. Typical exploratoryactivities might be dramatic play or block build-ing. The purpose of this period is "to permit thechild to apply his basic skills in a variety of con-texts and to stimulate interest in new kinds oflearning activities," according to the developer.

40

Parent Involvement

The project staff hopes eventually to trainparents to extend the learning environmentfrom the classroom to the home. The directorstates that pilot programs in this area havebeen promising and future development is

underway.


In addition to developing curriculum ma-terials, PEP is exploring means of supervisingand training the teaching staff. The trainingproject is conducted jointly by the Learning Re-search and Development Center's LearningLaboratory and the School of Education at theUniversity of Pittsburgh. Some of the trainingmaterials currently being developed includevideotapes.


Because the project is still in the develop-mental stage, there is no way of determiningthe requirements or costs of implementation.


The PEP model is based on current theoriesthat regard intelligence as learned and respon-sive to expc.rience rather than fixed and in-herited (Hunt, 1961, Intelligence and Experi-ence). In designing the skill sequences, thePEP staff drew heavily on the work of Piaget(The Child's Conception of Numbers, TheChild's Conception of Geometry, etc.) andJerome Bruner (Toward a Theory of Instructionand Studies in Cognitive Growth). The specificinstructional sequences, however, were derivedby the developers through behavior analysis ofeach task, identifying its components and pre-requisites (Resnick, 1967; Resnick, Wang, andKaplan, 1970).

A formal PEP program was first implementedin a classroom setting during 1968-69 in FrickElementary School in urban Pittsburgh. A bat-tery of diagnostic tests developed for PEP wasused to assess student progress. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test (L-M Form) and threeLevel I Wide-Range Achievement Tests werealso administered. Gains were shown.

The PEP research staff is also developing in-struments to measure learning outcomes in theaffective domain.

A4


The Primary Education Project (PEP)started in 1967 as a cooperative undertakingof the University of Pittsburgh, the PittsburghPublic Schools, and the General Learning Cor-poration. The Learning Research and Develop-ment Center of the University of Pittsburgh isresponsible for research and development work;the University's School of Education is respon-sible for developing inservice and preserviceteacher training programs. The General Learn-ing Corporation provided the initial funding forthe project; the project is now supported by

the Ford Foundation, with additional supportfrom the U.S. Office of Education.

The project staff is continuing to analyze,test, write, and retest the PEP program, as wellas explore new curriculum areas to add to thecurrent model. As stated, PEP is also trying todevelop new methods of parent involvementand to devise training programs that will enableteachers to function effectively in its program.

In addition to the developmental school, thePEP program is presently used in four FollowThrough school districts and in two Pittsburghschools. The projected date of completion ofthe project is 1972.

RESPONSIVE PROGRAM

Project Director: Glen Nimnicht

Far West Laboratory for Educational Researchand Development

1 Garden Circle, Hotel ClaremontBerkeley, California 94705


The Responsive Program model is designedto promote the development of intellectualabilities and a healthy self-concept, contributingto the welfare of the total child. The model isappropriate for all children from preschoolthrough the third grade, regardless of back-ground and ability.


In order for the child to develop a healthyself-concept, he needs to develop a number ofpositive attitudes and values, including:

A liking for himself and his peopleA belief that what he thinks, feels, says,and does makes a differOnce

A belief that he can be successful in school

A belief that he can solve a variety of prob-lems

A realistic estimate of his abilities andlimitations andFeelings of pleasure and enjoyment.

In the area of intellectual development,achievement in the following areas is specifiedin the context of problem solving:

Sensory and perceptual developmentLanguage development

Concept formation.

Instructional units, called learning episodes,are used to achieve the objectives. The learningepisodes make use of specific toys, games, orequipment, rather than printed materials, suchas workbooks. A series of eight basic toys, usedin a number of learning episodes, may be ob-tained through General Learning Corporation;other materials are also recommended by thedevelopers. Many of the items can be impro-vised; and though no one piece of material is

42

considered absolutely necessary, it is essentialthat a great variety of materials be provided.


The learning environment is designed to beresponsive to the needs of children. In thisenvironment, the child can explore activitiesthat interest him, progress at his own pace,make personal discoveries, obtain immediatefeedback, and find learning enjoyable for itsown rewards. The teacher does not dictate whateach child must learn; instead she waits forclues from the child by expressed interest. Shewill then work with an individual child or a smallgroup of children. Most toys and games usedin the model have self-correcting features, en-abling children to work independently or in asmall group. One or two large group activitiesper day are recommended. These group activi-ties generally involve listening to a story, show-ing and telling or participating in a learningepisode which introduces a new game or toy.

Parent Involvement

There are two separate parent involvementprograms operating in the Responsive ProgramModel. The first one is used with parents ofchildren attending Follow Through classes. Lo-cal teachers and assistants conduct weekly orbiweekly meetings to familiarize parents withthe program; to demonstrate the use of toys,games, and materials; and to receive sugges-tions and recommendations from parents forimproving the program.

The other parent involvement program is atoy lending library designed for parents of S-and 4-year-old children. Parents meet once aweek for 8 weeks in a course conducted by atrained teacher- librarian. The course is cen-tered around learning to use a series of eight

. 46

basic toys, and each week the parent takeshome a new toy to use with her children.

Training materials for the toy library areavailable from the General Learning Corpora-tion. Other training materials for parent involve-ment are under development.


A locally appointed program adviser attendsfour seminars during the year to learn about theprogram and procedures for training teachersand assistants. He in turn is responsible fortraining local teachers and assistants.

Materials for training teachers and assistantsare available from both the developers andGeneral Learning Corporation.


The classroom should have various learningcenters, alcoves, and activity areas. Wall-to-wallcarpeting helps to reduce the noise level andprovides a comfortable surface to play on.Ample storage space is necessary for toys,games, and materials. An electric typewriter isrecommended as an optional piece of equip-ment for kindergarten and first grade.

A set of materials for a program adviser touse with 10 classes costs approximately $415;the typewriter costs approximately $300; theequipment needed to start a toy library costsapproximately $160. Other cost information has;':ot been established.

One teacher and one assistant are requiredin each classroom.


The Responsive Program is an electricmodel incorporating research from a numberof sources. The model is most influenced by

43

the works of 0. K. Moore, Maria Montessori,and cognitive developmentalists like J. McV.Hunt, Benjamin Bloom, and William Fowler.

The model undergoes a series of researchand development steps with sample tests toensure the effectiveness of the program, whichinclude:

1. Designing and testing prototypes, select-ing the best alternative

2. Preliminary testing for product feasibility3. Performance testing4. Operational testing.

A number of evaluation studies have beenconducted to measure the effectiveness of theprogram. They include studies conducted bythe developers, independent agencies, andschools implementing the model. The results ofthese studies tend to show significant differ-ences on measures of intelligence, achieve-ment, and self-concept.


The program, initiated at Colorado State Col-lege in 1964, was called the New NurserySchool. The school was founded to meet theneeds of children from low-income and eth-nically different backgrounds. Shortly after theNew Nursery School was established, a secondschool, the Responsive Environment Nursery,was founded in Colorado for children of middle-class parents. In 1967, Dr. Glen Nimnicht, thefounder of the nursery schools in Colorado,started the Responsive Environment Model atthe Far West Laboratory for Educational Re-search and Development. During the followingyear (1968), a Follow Through model was ini-tiated. At the present time, the developers aresponsoring Head Start and Follow Throughclasses around the country.

TUCSON EARLY EDUCATION MODEL

Director: Ronald W. HendersonProject Director: Joseph Fillerup

Arizona Center for Early Childhood EducationUniversity of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona 85721


The Tucson Early Education Model (TEEM)originated as a program for Mexican-Americanchildren in first through third grades. It is nowused in preschool through third-grade HeadStart and Follow Through classes with childrenof all cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The goalof the program is to prepare children for "laterparticipation in the technical, social, and eco-nomic life of contemporary America" by devel-oping an intrinsically motivating program de-signed to improve intellectual abilities and de-velop children's self-esteem. The objectives areclassified into four areaslanguage, compe-tence, intellectual base, motivational base, andsocietal arts and skillsfurther subdivided asfollows:

Language competence: Learning linguisticlabels, concepts, language forms, andan awareness of the function of lan-guage.

Intellectual base: Ability to attend, recall,and organize stimuli; to plan, choose,predict, and organize behavior towardgoals.

Motivational base: Acquiring positive atti-tudes toward school and learning, per-sistence, expectation of success, andwillingness to change.

Societal arts and skills: Learning skills inreading, writing, and mathematics, aswell as social skills, such as cooperationand participation in a democratic proc-ess.


The program covers a wide range of skills,concepts, and attitudes. Children are expectedto develop academic skills and concepts,"learning to learn" skills, social skills, and atti-tudes related to self-concept and motivation;

44

and to acquire skills which will make it possiblefor them to process information from diversecontent areas and from their natural environ-ment. There is no set curriculum for the pro-gram.

The Tucson staff does not supply studentmaterials.. The program uses standard manipu-lative materials such as Cuisenaire rods, blocks,games, and puzzles, as well as books, house-keeping equipment such as toy stoves andutensils, and dress-up clothes. Many of themanipulative materials can be made by thechild and/or the teacher; the rest may be ob-tained from numerous supply outlets.


The program is designed to be intrinsicallymotivating, principally through the use of ac-tivities in which skills and concepts from dif-ferent subject areas are combined. For exam-ple, in a cooking activity children may learnabout quantity, read, learn new vocabulary, ob-serve physical changes in matter, follow direc-tions, and then write about the activity.

The classroom is arranged into interest cen-ters for reading, arithmetic, science, or con-struction. Interest centers are equipped withmaterials suitable for children at different levelsof development. The children work in smallheterogeneous groups called committees andtake turns being chairman. During committeetime any child may leave his group and go toareas designated as free choice centers, suchas the game center or housekeeping area.

Parent Involvement

There is no specific parent involvement pro-gram, although the developers intend to developone. Parents are encouraged to visit the class-rooms and serve as volunteers or teachingaides. The developers urge two-way communi-cation between home and school. They feel that

48

parents should be informed of their children'sprogress and encouraged to take an active rolein their education, arid schools should learn torelate the classroom experience as much aspossible to the knowledge and abilities thechild brings from his own cultural background.


The Center for Early Childhood Education inTucson provides two or three 1-week preservicetraining sessions a year for locally appointedprogram assistants. The program assistants, inturn, hold preservice training for local teachersand aides. Although the center does not directlytrain local teachers and aides, it will provideconsultants to assist program assistants andteachers with problems that arise. The devel-opers have produced slide sets and videotapesfor training purposes. The materials are avail-able from the developers.


The classroom must be equipped with mov-able chairs and tables. The developers recom-mend a hot plate in each classroom for cookingactivities and suggest such equipment as a pri-mary typewriter, tape recorder, record player,and woodworking equipment. No one item isessential.

A teacher and one aide are recommendedfor each classroom. A program assistant is

needed for every 10 teachers or aides (maxi-mum). The cost per pupil for comprehensiveservices, including health and psychologicalservices, is about $1,300 per year.


The Tucson Model is an eclectic program,drawing on research in social learning, childdevelopment, and language development.

The design of the model was influenced by

45

the ideas of Marie Hughes, the first projectdirector. Modifications have occurred on thebasis of classroom observation and informalfeedback from teachers rather than through aformal development-evaluation-revision cycle.

Data collected by the local districts usingprimarily the Metropolitan Achievement Testsare reported "mixed" and cannot be releasedwithout the consent of both the school authori-ties and the parents. The Tucson staff statesthat standardized tests are not adequate meas-ures of the outcomes the program is designedto produce. For this reason, the staff has putits evaluation efforts into developing new instru-ments and evaluating their reliability and valid-ity.


The Tucson Model began in 1965 as a 3-yearjoint project of the University of Arizona andTucson School District No. 1 to design a newprogram for young Mexican-American children.The program was implemented in 68 classes atgrades one through three in eight Tucsonschools. In 1967 the Arizona Center for EarlyChildhood Education at the University of Ari-zona became responsible for continuing elabo-ration and evaluation of the project. Dr. MarieHughes, co-originator of the program, becameproject director. In 1968 the center was askedto be a Follow Through sponsor for 14 com-munities around the country. Since its begin-ning, the project has shifted its focus fromonly MeXican-American children to includechildren of all backgrounds. The program hasbeen expanded downward to preschool andkindergarten.

In 1971-72 the Tucson Model was imple-mented in 20 school systems across the coun-try, from Alaska to New Jersey, in preschoolthrough third grade (Head Start and FollowThrough) classes.

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, A. R., and Moore, 0. K. "AutotelicFold-Models." Sociological Quarterly, 1960,1, 203-216.

Armington, D. "A Plan for Continuing Educa-tion." Newton, Mass.: Education Develop-ment Center, 1969.

Ausubel, D. P. "How Reversible Are the Cogni-tive and Motivational Effects of CulturalDeprivation? Implications for Teaching theCulturally Deprived Child." Urban Education,1964, 1, 16-38.

Ayllori, T., and Azrin, N. The Token Economy:A Motivational System for Therapy and Reha-bilitation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1968.

Baldwin, A. L. Theories of Child Development.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968.

Baratz, S., and Baratz, J. "Early Childhood In-tervention: The Social Sciences Base ofInstitutional Racism." Harvard EducationalReview, 1970, 40 (1), 29-47.

Bear, D. M., and Wolf, M. M. "The Reinforce-ment Contingency in Preschool and RemedialEducation." In R. D. Hess and R. M. Baer,eds., Early Education. Chicago: Aldine Pub-lishing Company, 1968.

Becker, W. Teaching ChildrenA Child Man-agement Program for Parents. Champaign,III.: Engelmann-Becker Corporation, 1969.

Behavior Analysis Sponsors. A Token Manualfor Behavior Analysis Classrooms. Lawrence,Kans.: Department of Human Development,University of Kansas, 1970.

Bereiter, C. Acceleration of Intellectual Devel-opment in Early Childhood. Urbana: Univer-sity of Illinois, 1967.

. "Instructional Planning in Early Com-pensatory Education." In J. Helmuth, ed.,The Disadvantaged Child. Seattle: SpecialChild Publications, 1967, 339-347.

and Engelmann, S. Teaching Disad-vantaged Children in the Preschool. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

et al. "An Academically Oriented Pre-school for Culturally Deprived Children." In

L

46

F. M. Hechinger, Ed., Preschool EducationToday. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1966,105-135.

Beyer, E. Teaching Young Children. New York:Western Publishing Co., 1968.

Biber, B. "Goals and Methods in a PreschoolProgram for Disadvantaged Children." Chil-dren, Jan-Feb., 1970, 15-20.

et al. Promoting Cognitive Growth: ADevelopmental-Interactional Point of View.Washington, D.C.: National Association forthe Education of Young Children, 1971.

Bing, E. "Effect of Child Rearing Practice onDevelopment of Differential Cognitive Abili-ties." Child Development. 1963, 34, 631-648.

Bloom, B. S. Stability and Change in HumanCharacteristics. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1964.

Blackie, J. Inside the Primary School. London:Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967.

Brearly, M., and Hitchfield, C. A Guide to Read-ing Piaget. New York: Schocken Books, 1966.

Brown, M., and Precious, N. The IntegratedDay in the Primary School. New York: Aga-thon, 1968.

Bruner, J. S. "The Cognitive Consequence ofEarly Sensory Deprivation." PsychosomaticMedicine, 1959, 19, 1-15.

. "The Course of Cognitive Develop-ment." American Psychologist, 1964, 19,1-16.

et al. Studies in Cognitive Growth. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.

Circirelli, V. G., et al. The Impact of HeadStart: An Evaluation of the Effects of HeadStart on Children's Cognitive and AffectiveDevelopment. 1969, ERIC, Ed 036 321.

et al. "The Impact of Head Start: AReply to the Report Analysis." Harvard Edu-cational Review. 1970, 40 (1), 105-129.

Coleman, J. S., et al. Equality of Educationalgligigortunities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-

ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,Office of Education, 1966.

Deutsch, M. The Disadvantaged Child. NewYork: Basic Books, 1967.

. "Facilitating Development in the Pre-school Child." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,1964, 10, 249-263.

. "The Role of Social Class in LanguageDevelopment and Cognition." American Or-thopsychiatric Journal, 1965, 25, 78-88.

. "Some Psychosocial Aspects of Teach-ing the Disadvantaged." Teachers CollegeRecord, 1966, 67, (4), 264-265.

and Brown, B. "Social Influences in

Negro-White Intelligence Differences." Amer-ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 20,24-25.

and Deutsch, P. "Brief Reflections onthe Theory of Early Childhood EnrichmentPrograms." In R. D. Hess and R. M. Baer,eds., Early Education. Chicago: Aldine Pub-lishing Company, 1969.

Egbert, R. L. Description of Follow ThroughApproaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office ofEducation, 1969.

Elkind, D. "Piagetian and Psychometric Concep-tions of Intelligence." Harvard EducationalReview, 1969, 39, 319-337.

Featherstone, J. "How Children Learn." TheNew Republic, Sept. 2, 1967.

. "Open School 1What's Happeningin British Classrooms." The New Republic,Sept. 19, 1967.

. "Teaching Children To Think." TheNew Republic, Sept. 9, 1967.

Flavell, J. The Developmental Theory of JeanPiaget. New York: Van Nostrand, 1963.

Fowler, W. "Cognitive Learning in Infancy andEarly Childhood." Psychological Bulletin,1962, 59, 116-152.

"Concept Learning in Early Childhood."Young Children. 1965, 21, 81-91.

. "The Effect of Early Stimulation in theEmergence of Cognitive Processes." In.yR. D.

47

Hess and R. M. Baer, eds., Early Education.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968.

. "The Patterning of DevelopmentalLearning Processes in the Nursery School."In A. J. Biemiller, ed., Problems in the Teach-ing of Young Children. Monograph Series No.9, Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute forStudies in Education, 1970, 27-46.

Gordon, I. J., and Lally, J. R. Intellectual Stim-ulation for Infants and Toddlers. Gainesville,Fla.: Institute for Development of Human Re-sources, University of Florida, 1969.

Gray, S. W. "Intervention With Mothers andYoung Children: The Focal Endeavor of aResearch Training Program." In H. C. Hay-ward, ed., Social Cultural Aspects of MentalRetardation, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.

and Klaus, R. A. "The Early TrainingProject and Its General Rationale." In R. D.Hess and R. M. Baer, eds., Early Education.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.

and . "The Experimental Pre-school Program for Culturally DeprivedChildren." Child Development, 1965, 36,887-898.

et al. Before First Grade. New York:Teachers College, Columbia University Press,1966.

Grotberg, E. H. Review of Research 1965 to1969 of Project Head Start. Washington,D. C.: U.S. Office of Child Development,1969.

Hays, D. G., ed. Britannica Review of AmericanEducation. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britan-nica, 1969.

Hellmuth, J., ed. The Disadvantaged Child, Vol-ume 1. Seattle: Special Child Publications,1967.

Henderson, R. Environmental Stimulation andIntellectual Development of Mexican-Ameri-can ChildrenAn Exploratory Project. Tuc-son: University of Arizona, 1966.

"Research and Consultation in theNatural Environment." Psychology in theSchools, 1970, 8, 4.

The Tucson Early Education Model.Tucson: Arizona Center for Early Childhood,University of Arizona, January 1969.

and Merritt, C. "Environmental Back-grounds of Mexican-American Children withDifferent Potentials for School Success."Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 75,101-106.

Hobson, A. "Systematic Language Modeling."Contemporary Education, 1969, 40, (4),225-227.

Holt, J. How Children Fail. New York: PitmanPublishing Corp., 1964.

How Children Learn. New York: PitmanPublishing Corp., 1967.

The Underachieving School. NewYork: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1967.

Hughes, M., Wetzel, R., and Henderson, R. TheTucson Early Education Model. Urbana, Ill.:National Laboratory on Early Childhood Edu-cation, no date.

Hull, W., and Armington, D. Leicestershire Re-visited. ERIC, ED029683.

Hunt, J. McV. "The Epigenesis of IntrinsicMotivation and the Fostering of Early Cogni-tive Development." In J. McV. Hunt, ed., TheChallenge of Incompetence and Poverty.Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press,1969, 94-111.

. "Has Compensatory Education Failed?Has It Been Attempted?" Harvard Education-al Review, 1969, 39, 278-300.

. Intelligence and Experience. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1961.

. "The Psychological Basis for UsingPreschool Environment as an Antidote forCultural Deprivation." Merrill-Palmer Quar-terly, 1964, 10, 209.248.

Jensen, A. R. "How Much Can We Boost IQand Scholastic Achievement?" Harvard Edu-cational Review, 1969, 39, 1-23.

Kagan, J. "Continuity in Cognitive DevelopmentDuring the First Year." Merrill-Palmer Quar-terly, 1969, 15, (1) 101-119.

and Moss, H. A. Birth to Maturity: AStudy in Psychological Development. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1962. '7

48

Karnes, M. B. "A Research Program To Deter-mine the Effects of Various Preschool Inter-vention Programs on the Development ofDisadvantaged Children and the StrategicAge for Such Intervention." Paper presentedat the American Educational Research Asso-ciation conference, Chicago, 1968.

et al. "Effects of a Highly StructuredProgram of Language Development on Intel-lectual Functioning and Psycholinguistic De-velopment of Culturally DisadvantagedThree-Year-Olds." Journal of Special Educa-tion, 1968, 2, 405-412.

et al. "Final Report: Research and De-velopment Program on Preschool Disadvan-taged Children." Submitted to the Bureau ofResearch, U.S. Office of Education, 1969.

Kohlberg, L. "Early Education: A Cognitive De-velopmental View." Child Development,196E 39, 1013-1062.

Lambie, D., and Weikart, D. "The Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infant Education Project." In J.Helmuth, ed., The Disadvantaged Child, Vol.3. New York: Bruner-Mazel, 1970.

Landreth, C. Early Education: Behavior andLearning. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,1969.

Le Shan, E. J. The Conspiracy Against Children.New York: Atheneum, 1967.

Light, R. J., and Smith, P. V. "Choosing a Fu-ture :Strategies for Designing and EvaluatingNew Programs." Harvard Educational Re-view, 1970, 40, (1), 1-28.

Maccoby, E. E., and Zeliner, M. Experiments inPrimary Education: Aspects of Project Fol-low-Through. New York: Harcourt, Brace andJovanovich, Inc., 1970.

March, L. Alongside the Child. New York:Praeger Publishers, 1970.

Maryolin, E. "Crucial Issues in ContemporaryEarly. Childhood Education." Childhood Edu-cation, 1969, 45, (9), 500-504.

McCelland, D., et al. The Cognitive Curriculum.Ypsilanti, Mich.: High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation, 1970.

52

Mc David, J. M., et al. Project Head Start: Eval-uation of Research Summary 1965-1967.Washington, D.C.: Division of Research andEvaluation, Office of Economic Opportunity,no date.

Mc Dill, E. L. and M. S., and Sprehe, J. T.

Strategies for Success in CompensatoryEducation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press, 1969.

Moore, 0. J. and Anderson, A. R. "The Respon-sive Environment Project." In R. D. Hessand R. M. Baer, eds., Early Education. Chi-cago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.

Nimnicht, G. "Low-Cost Typewriter ApproachHelps Preschoolers Type Words and Stories."Nation's Schools, 1967, 80, 34-37.

et al, The New Nursery School. NewYork: General Learning Corporation, 1967.

et al. Interim Report: Report of theNew Nursery School. Greeley: Colorado StateCollege, 1967.

et al. "An Autotelic Responsive Environ-ment Nursery School for Deprived Children."In J. Hellmuth, ed., The DisadvantagedChild, Vol. II. Seattle: Special Child Publica-tions, 1967.

et al. "Nursery School Education To-day." Colorado State College Journal of Re-search Services, 1967, 6, 33-39.

Patterson, G. R., and Gullion, M. E. Living withChildren: New Methods for Parents andTeachers. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press,1968.

Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. The Growth of Logi-cal Thinking. New York: Basic Books, 1958.

Pines, M. Revolution in Learning. New York:Harper and Row, 1966.

Plowden Report. Children and Their PrimarySchools, Vol. I and II. London: Her Majesty'sStationery Office, 1967.

Resnik, L. B. Design of an Early Learning Cur-riculum. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh,Learning Research and Development Center,1967.

Rogers, V. Teaching in the British PrimarySchools. New York: Macmillan, 1970.

Smilansky, S. The Effects of SociodramaticPlay on Disadvantaged Preschool Children.New York: John Wiley, 1968.

Smith, M. S. and Bissell, J. S. "Report Analysis:The Impact of Head Start." Harvard Educa-tional Review, 1970, 40, 51-104.

Spodek, B. Extending Open Education in theUnited States. Urbana: University of Illinois,1970.

Turknett, C. N., Kelly, P. E. and King, K. TheSociology of Early Childhood Education.Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, Researchand Developmental Center in EducationalStimulation, 1969.

U.S. Office of Education, It Works: PreschoolPrograms in Compensatory Education: Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1968.

Weber, E. Early Childhood Education: Perspec-tives on Change. Worthington, Ohio: CharlesA. Jones Publishing Company, 1970.

Weber, L. The English Infant School and In-formal Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Weikart, D. Perry Preschool Project ProgressReportReview of 1960-1963. Ypsilanti,Mich.: Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1964.

, ed. Preschool Intervention: Prelimi-nary Results From the Perry Preschool Proj-ect. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Campus Publish-ers, 1967.

The Ypsilanti Preschool CurriculumDemonstration Project. Ypsilanti, Mich.:High/Scope Educational Research Founda-tion, 1969.

and Lambie, D. "Education of the In-fant and Young Children." In V. Dannenberg,ed., Early Enrichment in Infants. New York:Academic Press, 1970.

and . "Preschool InterventionThrough a Home Teaching Program. In J.Hellmuth, ed., The Disadvantaged Child.Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1968.

et al. Longitudinal Results of theYpsilanti Perry Preschool Project. Ypsilanti,

Mich.: High/Scope Educational ResearchFoundation, 1970.

Wohlwill, J. E. "Piaget's Theory of the Develop-ment of Intelligence in the Concrete Opera-tional Period." American Journal of MentalDeficiency Monograph, 1966, 74, (4), 57-108.

Current ERIC Entries on Early Childhood Education Programs

The following references are from the ERICjournals Research in Education (RIE) and Cur-rent Index to Journals in Education (CIJE).Copies of the documents which are abstractedin RIE are available in microfiche and hardcopy, at the prices noted, from the ERIC Docu-

ment Reproduction Service (EDRS), P.O.Drawer 0, Bethesda, Md. 20014.

Descriptive annotations are included with mostof the entries in CIJE, but the articles them-selves are available only from the journals inwhich they originally appeared.

Entries from Research in Education

Educational Programs for Children Under Sixwith Implications for the Handicapped. vol. 1,no. 1. ED055 382. 37 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.29.

Speech and Hearing Services in Exemplary EarlyChildhood Education Centers. vol. 1., no. 3.ED055 384. 45 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.29.

Review of the Literature in Early ChildhoodEducation, with Emphasis Upon Early Educationof Handicapped Children: A Staff Training Man-ual. vol. 1, no. 8. ED055 389. 48 pp. MF-$.65;HC-$3.29.

Training of Nonprofessionals in Early ChildhoodEducation Centers. vol. 1, no. 11. ED055 392.85 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.29.

For Young Children: Early Childhood! SpecialEducation Conference Reports (September 27-October 2, 1970, January 20-21, 1971). ED056255. 106 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$6.58.

The Development of Problem-Solving Skills inEarly Childhood. ED057 073. 324 pp. MF-$.65;HC-$13.16.

Testing Little ChildrenSome Old Problems inNew Settings. ED057 112. 16 pp. MF-$.65;HC-$3.29.

Longitudinal Evaluation of Selected Features ofthe National Follow Through Program. ED057266. 231 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$9.87.

Curriculum Guide: Hearing-Impaired ChildrenBirth to Three Yearsand Their Parents. ED057527. 174 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$6.58.

Preschool Intervention: A Behavioral ServiceDelivery Systems. ED057 536. 12 pp. MF-$.65;HC-$3.29.

Developmental Theory: Its Place and Relevancein Early Intervention Programs. ED057 898.17 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.29.

Guidelines in Constructing Operant Strategieswith Children. ED057 920. 32 pp. MF-$.65;HC-$3.29.

The Home Start Program: Guidelines. ED058948. 20 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.25.

Recent Research in Early Childhood Education.ED058 970. 13 pp. MF-$.65; HC-$3.29.

An Evaluation of the ESA Title I Program toStrengthen Early Childhood Education in Pov-erty Area Schools, New York City Board of Edu-cation. ED059 338. 234 pp. MF-$.65; HC$9.87.

50

. 54

Entries from Current Index to Journals in Education

"Multiple Model Programing for Early Child-hood Education." Education, vol. 92, no. 1, pp.813, Sept.-Oct. 1971. EJ045 646.

"Early Childhood EducationImplementation.Educational Goals and Public Priorities: Educa-tion Commission of the States Annual Meeting(Boston, Massachusetts, July 7-9, 1971), ClinicSession No. 15." CompactSpecial Issue, vol.5, pp. 34, 1971. EJ045 712.

"Volunteer Assistance in the Preschool for theDeaf." Volta Review, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 503-6,Nov. 1971. EJ045 946.

"Social Science in Early Education." School andSociety, vol. 99, no. 2337, pp. 465-6, Dec.1971. EJ048 403.

"Video-Tapes in Early Childhood Education."Education, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 79-81, Nov.-Dec.1971. EJ048 534.

"World of Work and Early Childhood." ReadingTeacher, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 253-56, Dec. 1971.EJ048 591.

"Experiences with Preschool Deaf-Blind Chil-dren." Exceptional Children, vol. 38, no. 5, pp.415-421, Jan. 1972. EJ048998.

"Literature Approved by Today's KindergartenChildren." Elementary English, vol. 48, no. 8,pp. 953-9, Dec. 1971. EJ049. 215.

"Preschool Education: As the Crow Flies." Na-tional Elementary Principal, vol. 52, no. 4, pp.30-39, Jan. 1972. EJ050 155.

"A Survey of Junior College Curricula Relatedto the Preparation of Preschool Personnel."Illinois School Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 47-52, Fall 1971. EJ051 526.

"The Teacher's Role in Helping Young ChildrenDevelop Language Competence." Young Chil-dren, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 133-42, Feb. 1972.EJ051 566.

"Let Us Sing with Mama." Music EducatorsJournal, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 63-4, Feb. 1972.EJ051 614.

Past PREP Reports

The following PREP reports are available only from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service,P.O. Drawer 0, Bethesda, Maryland 20014, in microfiche (65 cents) and hard copy ($3.29). Order bythe ED number provided for each report.

1Instructional Television Facilities: A Guide for School Administrators and Board Members. ED 034077.

2Reading Difficulties: Reading and the Home Environment. The Principal's Responsibility. ED 034078.

3Establishing Central Reading Clinics: Tke Administrator's Role. ED 034 079.

4Correcting Reading Problems in the Classroom. ED 034 080.

5Treating Reading Disabilities: The Specialist's Role. ED 034 081.

6Bilingual Education. ED 034 082.

7Research for School Board Members: School-Community Relations. ED 034 083.

8Research for School Board Members: Teacher Militancy, Negotiations, and Strikes. ED 034 084.

9Job-Oriented Education Programs for the Disadvantaged. ED 034 085.

10Seminar on Preparing the Disadvantaged for Jobs: A Planning Handbook. ED 034 086.

11Research on Elementary Mathematics. ED 034 087.

12Paraprofessional Aides. ED 034 906.

13Sharing Educational Services. ED 036 666.

14Social Studies and the Disadvantaged. ED 037 588.

15Student Participation in Academic Governance. ED 038 555.

16Individualized Instruction. ED 041 185. (Hard copy, $6.58)

17Microteaching. ED 041 190.

18Reinforcing Productive Classroom Behavior: A Teacher's Guide to Behavior Modification. ED042 061.

19Migrant Education. ED 042 936.

20Teacher Recruitment and Selection. ED 043 797.

21Teacher Evaluation. ED 044 546.

22A Readiness Test for Disadvantaged Preschool Children. ED 047 168.

23Educational Cooperatives. ED 048 521.

The PREP Reports which follow these are available from the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office as shown on the inside front cover of this issue.

. 56

ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION SERVICELEASCO INFORMATION PRODUCTS, INC.

P.O. Drawer 0, Bethesda, Md. 20014

PREP REPORTS

ON-DEMAND ORDER BLANK

SL TO: SHIP TO:

iRCHASE ORDER NO

REPORTS TO BE ORDERED

ED Number Number of Copies PRICE TOTALMF HC PRICE

4l

.2

3

4

5

TAX NUMBER SUBTOTAL1

II DEPOSIT ACCT. NUMBER TAX1

CHARGE (OVER $10.00)

CHECK NUMBER TOTALI

ERIC DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION SERVICE is operated by Leasco Info

Quality warranty. LIPCO will replace products returned becauseof reproduction defects or incompleteness. The quality of theinput document is not the responsibility of LIPCO. Best avail.able copy will be supplied.

Indicate payment method desired. Payment must accompanyall orders of $10.00 or less. Make all drafts payable to EDRS.

Sign AUTHORIZATION and date order.

AUTHORIZATION DATE

TITLE OR DEPT

MAKE ALL DRAFTS PAYABLE TO EDRS

Orders are filled only from ED accession numbers. Titlesare, not checked. Please be sure you have supplied thecorrect numbers.

rmation Products, Inc. for the U.S. Office of Education.

. 57

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME AA 001 0147 Chow, Stanley; And Others Early Childhood...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME AA 001 0147 Chow, Stanley; And Others Early Childhood...