The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education
TABLE 4-1 Longitudinal Studies of Child Development Programs
Researcher
Age Group
Ratio
Group size
Duration
Abecedarian Project (Campbell and Ramey, 1994)
Infants, preschool
1:3
1:6
14
12
5 years
Brookline Early Education Project (Hauser-Cram et al.,1991)
Infants, preschool
1:1
16
18
5 years
Early Childhood Education Project (Sigel et al., 1973; Cataldo, 1978)
2-3 years
1:7
22
3 years
Early Training Project (Gray et al., 1982)
Preschool
1:5
20
2 or 3 years
Family Development Research Program (Honig and Lally, 1982)
1-2 years
Infants, preschool
1:4
8
5 years
Harlem Training Project (Palmer, 1983)
Preschool
1:1
NA
1-2 years
Infant Health and Development
1-2 years
1:3
6 8
3 years
Program (Ramey et al., 1992; Infant Health and Development Program Consortium, 1990)
2-3 years
1:4
Milwaukee Project (Garber, 1988)
2 years
3 years preschool
1:2
1:3
1:7
?
6 years
Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1993)
Preschool
1:5
20-25
2 years
Project CARE (Wasik et al., 1990)
Infants, preschool
1:3
1:6
14
12
5 years
SOURCES: Data from Frede (1998); Lazar et al. (1977); and NRC (2001b:134-135).
The principle that intensity matters applies to two-generation programs that work with parents as well. One home visit program (Powell and Grantham-McGregor, 1989) produced significant cognitive benefits with three visits per week but not with less frequent visits. Similarly, the Brookline Early Education Project (Hauser-Cram et al., 1991) reported significant cognitive and social benefits only from its most intensive two-generation interventions.
