Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 187
Preschool Education for
Disadvantaged Children
David R Weikart
A continuing problem in American education is how to curb
the widespread failure in school of children from disad-
vantaged backgrounds. Many programs have been developed
in response to this problem, a large number at the pre-
school level. Although it seems fairly certain that
preschool intervention may facilitate a child's adjustment
to and progress in school, participation in these programs
does not ensure them. This paper discusses some aspects
of the history of early childhood education, describes
some exemplary programs, describes methods used to evalu-
ate their effectiveness, and presents some alternative
methods of evaluation.
The social pressures for general reform in society and
especially in education produced one of the most enduring
Great Society programs, Head Start, in the summer of 1965.
Based on a few adventurous programs established in the
early 1960s, this eight-week effort was to accelerate
disadvantaged children and allow them to enter school at
an intellectual and academic level equal to their middle-
class advantaged peers. The fate of these expectations
is well known. The Westinghouse-Ohio University study
(1969) of longitudinal findings on Head Start recorded
the lack of any long-term intellectual or academic impact
from Head Start participation. These findings all but
eliminated Head Start from a political point of view. In
1970 the program itself was saved only by the direct
lobbying efforts of parents of Head Start children, who
had learned their skills in local Community Action Project
battles, and by the Office of Child Development (now the
Administration for Children, Youth, and Families). The
program's rationale was converted to the delivery of
social and health services. As such, Head Start limped
along with level funding for almost a decade, written off
187
OCR for page 188
188
by news media as well as politicians, carefully nursed by
staff at the regional and national levels, dedicated
professionals in early education, and by parents who
could see in their own families the benefits that Head
Start provided.
EARLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
While these changes occurred in the nature of the Head
Start program, a quiet revolution was under way regarding
the effectiveness of early education programs in general.
Information on the effects of preschool, which had been
accumulating from a range of studies initiated in the
1960s, were becoming available to the public and to policy
makers. Before discussing assessment issues, it may be
useful to summarize the state of those data. One source
of information is a collection of articles reviewing the
problems, issues, processes, and successes of Head Start
over the years (Zigler and Valentine, 1979). One of the
major sources of information is the Consortium for
Longitudinal Studies (1981). The consortium represents
an effort by 14 early childhood education researchers to
pool data from the early 1960s with more recent follow-up
information to evaluate the impact of early education
experiences on disadvantaged children. Although the
studies differ greatly in terms of sample' rigor of
research methodology, geographic locale, instrumentation
used, etc., they represent a major body of information on
effectiveness of early childhood education. This paper
draws extensively on several of these studies, conducted
by the High/Scope Foundation, because of their pivotal
role in the design and collection of family-based data,
cost data, and postschool records used by other studies.
The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool
Years and Longitudinal Results Through Fourth Grade
(Weikart et al., 1978a) is a study of the long-term
effects of preschool education on a group of "high-risk"
disadvantaged children as they progressed through the
early elementary grades. Grounded in a rigorous methodo-
logical framework, the study provides evidence that
preschool made a different in these children's lives.
The impact of the preschool experience on their school
achievement and grade placement, compared with the control
group, has been positive and sustained. (See Schweinhart
and Weikart, 1980, for a follow-up of these children
through ninth grade.)
OCR for page 189
189
The Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum Demonstration
Project: Preschool Years and Longitudinal Results
(Weikart et al., 1978b) presents and analyzes data from
an experiment designed to compare the impact of three
programs, which represent the dominant approaches to
preschool education during the late 1960s. The principal
findings were that (1) the programs were equally effective
both during and after preschool and (2) the children's
cognitive gains were still being maintained five years
after they entered elementary school.
An Economic Analysis of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool
Project (Weber et al., 1978) is a study of the social
rate of return (the return to society) of public invest-
ment in the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project. The
benefits and costs for the experimental group were
compared with those for the control group using the human
capital approach of economics. In the analysis the
economic benefits of the preschool program were quanti-
fied; then, by comparing the costs of the educational
program with these economic benefits, the rate of return
on the investment was calculated. Although these results
are primarily illustrative, because they are based on a
small sample and because the computations required some
broad assumptions about the applicability of census data
to the studied cohorts, the results appear to show that
the costs of the program were more than compensated by
benefits to society. The economic benefits were derived
from (1) less costly education (i.e., less special educa-
tion and institutionalized care) for the experimental
group, (2) higher projected lifetime earnings for this
group, and (3) time released from child care responsi-
bilities for the mothers of this group.
It is important to examine the methods used to
determine outcomes of education programs. Standardized
tests, indeed, any measurement of immediate or inter-
mediate outcomes, are merely approximations of real-world
goals that education purports to reach. Educators in
particular and the public in general have long been
enamored of tests of short-term outcomes as though they
stood for something real. Early grade achievement
correlates with twelfth-grade achievement "somewhere
between .75 and .95" (Bloom, 1964:97), but what such
correlations mean in terms of actual adult performance is
unclear. The functioning of adults includes such factors
as job performance capacity, ability to relate to peers,
willingness to learn from experience, interest in being a
contributing member of a group, capacity to earn one's
OCR for page 190
190
own way in the world, and ability to manage as an effec-
tive family member. These general goals are little pre-
dicted by the type of short-term tests available to
educators at this time. Yet these are the goals that make
a difference to both the individual and society at large.
MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES
Measurement of outcomes in early childhood education
programs occurs at three points. First, assessment
during the program itself guides the staff as to the
development of the participating child and the effective-
ness of the program. Second, at the end of the program
summative measures are used to assess immediate program
outcomes. Third, assessment after completion of the
program is used to study its long-term validity.
Formative Program Evaluation
Assessments made during the program use several
methods. Typical procedures include staff observation
and ratings of a child's progress, focusing on the
child's development and facilitating interaction.
Not only can the progress of the child be rated along
the theoretical dimensions demanded by the curriculum,
but the classroom system or organization and management
can also be appraised. Central features of program space
and operational needs are arranged in checklist format so
that each can be studied for presence or absence in the
program being evaluated. Such evaluations can be done by
trainers or by the staff itself.
In addition to various checklists for teacher (and
parents) to use in evaluating the progress of program
development and the path of child growth within the daily
experience, there are other, more systematic methods.
Observation scales have been carefully developed to give
a time sampling of the actual behavior of teacher and
child in the classroom. These can be genuine outcome
measures when the goal is to document how children spend
their time in learning-teaching situations and how the
life of the child in one curriculum compares with the
life of another. Perhaps the best known approach is that
of Jane Stalling's study (1975) of classrooms in Follow
Through.
OCR for page 191
191
The problems involved in using observation schedules
are sufficient to daunt even the most enthusiastic
supporter. Constant supervision is necessary to obtain
reliability in observations. This problem of reliability
is usually solved through rigorous training, vigorous
onsite supervision, and careful development of the final
instrument to be used in the field. Thus, almost all
observational schemes are tailored to specific programs.
In addition, most observation instruments must reflect
the theoretical nature of the program observed. Innova-
tive preschool educational programs differ greatly, and
procedures to capture the basic goals of a particular
program do not necessarily generalize to other situations.
A final issue is the cost of training, observing, scoring,
and reporting the findings from observation procedures.
(Generally such costs are prohibitive, except for well-
financed research projects.) While some cost control can
be achieved by carefully selecting the youngsters to be
observed through small-sample, random selection proce-
dures, keeping the use of the method to a minimum,
systematic observations are then for program validation
and not for individual child diagnosis.
Other methods exist for evaluating a program during
its actual operation. Practitioners skilled in the
curriculum used in a classroom can be employed to give a
professional assessment (see Miller and Dyer, 1975).
Weikart et al. (1978b) used a system of professional
consultants to summarize opinions of classroom operation
based on direct observation. Parent committees, opera-
tional standards, licensing officials, etc. all offer
some means of gaining information on immediate operations.
The more general the method, however, the less valuable
the outcomes.
In short, immediate information from daily operation
is possible through the use of checklists and rating
forms, direct time sampling of ongoing classroom opera-
tions, and general opinions of those who have contact
with the classroom. Such information is most useful to
those responsible for the daily operation of the program
and the quality of opportunity provided to the children.
In addition, information can be gained on the equality of
life" the children experience, and such information may
be the primary basis of recommending one curriculum or
another for specific children. Research has not yet
related these different experiences to performance as
children progress through school or to adult performance.
OCR for page 192
192
Summative Program Evaluation
When programs are complete, a summative evaluation is
often undertaken, although the emphasis historically given
to this type of evaluation in early education projects has
been questioned recently. Several issues are involved.
Should early childhood programs have to defend their con-
tribution to the child's development through careful
evaluation if first grade or third grade, for example,
have never been so evaluated? The need for summative and
longitudinal data for validation of preschool has been
raised only in connection with disadvantaged children.
Middle-class parents seek experiences for their children
and judge their effectiveness on their own impression of
their child's progress and happiness; disadvantaged
groups, some feel, should have the same prerogative. From
another viewpoint, others have stated that long-term out-
comes are what are important and end-of-project informa-
tion is irrelevant (Smilansky, 1979). Although the timing
of the evaluation is an issue, instrumentation raises the
most questions.
Assessments of preschool effectiveness have used two
major types of instruments: standardized, individually
administered intelligence tests, typically the Stanford-
Binet (S-B), and standardized achievement tests, such as
the Metropolitan Achievement Test or the California
Achievement Test. These instruments have been used
because of their power to predict performance in the
elementary grades and their reliability.
The use of these two types of instruments has generated
considerable political and social debate. Whether these
instruments measure the "true" abilities of disadvantaged
children in general and disadvantaged minority children
in particular has been at issue essentially because of
the failure of disadvantaged children to "do well" on
these instruments upon completion of intervention pro-
grams. Many thoughtful commentators have seen the problem
as one of bias in the instruments and have questioned
their cultural relevance. Legal proceedings in California
have proscribed the use of individualized intelligence
tests as the basis for placing youngsters in special
education programs. Some viewers have seen the problem
as a lack of congruence between the program goals and the
specific content of the measurement instrument. For
example, experience-based approaches to reading do not
employ or teach the standard vocabulary list that forms
the basis of the reading sections of most achievement
OCR for page 193
193
tests. The book by Jensen (1979) on mental testing is
likely to accelerate this debate.
Figure 1 illustrates the classic pattern of a
successful preschool intervention with a nontreatment
control in terms of standardized IQ testing. The data
are from the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project (Weikart
et al., 1978a).
While the youngsters start with nearly identical S-B
scores, in the spring of their second preschool year (S2Y)
the average score of the experimental group reflected a
gain of 15.3 points from the fall entry year (FEY), 10.3
points more than the control group (Figure 1). One year
later, in the spring of their kindergarten year, the
experimental group reflected a gain of 11.7 points from
FEY, only 4 points more than the control group who had
gained additional points upon school entry. Although
differences between the two groups remained significant
through the first grade, the performance of the
experimental group gradually declined once they entered
elementary school.
The pattern of performance in the control group merits
consideration in its own right. Since the children in
the sample were selected specifically because of their
low socioeconomic status (SES) and low S-B scores, it was
anticipated that their S-B scores would increase
somewhat--"regressing toward the population mean"--upon
second testing, regardless of treatment. The change in
IQ of the control group from initial to second testing at
the end of the first project year was +4.8 points. This
gain is the best estimate of the regression toward the
mean in S-B IQ for children in this sample. It seem
unlikely that testing procedures or acclimation to the
test situation accounts for this gain since procedures
were unchanging and closely resembled Zigler and
Butterfield's (1968) "optimizing" conditions. Although a
practice effect might be confounded with regression
toward the mean, this too seems improbable given the
nature of the test and the length of time between test
administrations. Assuming that the regression effect was
of the same magnitude in the experimental group, then
perhaps only 10.5 points of the experimental group's
15.3-point gain in S-B IQ over two years of preschool
represents the impact of treatment. This estimate of
"true" gain is approximately equal to the actual
difference in mean IQ between experimental and control
groups measured at the end of preschool.
OCR for page 194
194
1()5
1()()
95
._
m ~
. ~
no 0 90
0
c:
-
85
80
75
/
Treatment | No Treatment
(Preschool) - (Elementary School)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
EXP =-
CON = ~
FEY SKY
S2Y SKG SIG S2G S3G S4G
Time of Data Collection
Arithmetic Means, Standard Deviations,
Number of Subjects. and Significance Levels of F Tests
on Group Comparisons at Each Testpoint
Time of Data Collection
FEY SKY S2Y SKG SIG S2G S3G S4C
Mean 79.6 95.5 94.9 91.3 91.7 88.1 87.7 85.0
EXP (S.D.) ( 5.9) (11.5) (13.0) (12.2) (11.7) (13.1) (10.9) (11.3)
N 58 58 44 56 58 55 56 57
Mean 78.5 83.3 83.5 86.3 87.1 86.9 86.8 84.6
CON (S.D.) ( 6.9) (10.0) (10.2) ( 9.9) (10.2) (10.7) (12.5) (11.2)
N 65 65 49 64 61 62 61 57
Signtficanceof N.S. c 01 <.01 <.05 <.05 N.S. N.S. N.S.
F tests presented here were obtained in three-way analyses of variance (Group x Sex x Wave)
reported in the Statistical Supplement. Part A, Tables la-lc.
FIGURE 1 Average Stanford-Binet intelligence scale
scores for experimental and control groups. (Source
Based on Weikart et al., 1978.)
OCR for page 195
195
The upward inflection in the control group's perform-
ance curve upon enrollment in kindergarten deserves
comment. On the average, children in the control group
gained 2.8 points in IQ during kindergarten and another
point during first grade. It seems likely that gains of
this magnitude might be expected for any group of dis-
advantaged children confronting a new and challenging
educational experience. Bloom (1964) uses the term
"freshman effect" to describe this impact of new environ-
ment and new demands on individual intellectual perform-
ance. By the end of the fourth grade, however, this
school-related effect was no longer evident, and the
control group's performance had dropped to the level
attained at the second testing.
Preliminary analyses of the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children (WISC) full-scale IQ scores obtained
on eighth-grade children confirm the finding of no
difference in measured aptitude obtained at the fourth-
grade 1-ever. By this point the performance of both
experimental and control children was indistinguishable
from entry-level performance on the S-B.
The gradual attenuation of intelligence test gains
following preschool intervention in the Perry project
parallel the findings of most other compensatory preschool
studies. The erosion of preschool effects once children
enter regular public school is now a familiar pattern in
educational evaluation. Explanations of this loss include
the shift in the content of the test items to include more
verbal and abstract concepts and the understimulation of
children as a result of the increasing isolation from
ideal learning environments.
Two apparent exceptions to this pattern of vanishing
IQ gains are reported in the literature and should be
mentioned. Karnes (1973) reports on three programs that
maintained some small part (about 6 points) of their
initial IQ gains through the third grade. Weikart et al.
(1978b) report on three programs that maintained about 15
points of their initial IQ gains through the fourth
grade; children in the programs continued gains in IQ
through the eighth grade, a decade after intervention.
The findings of studies using data from the Consortium
for Longitudinal Studies on achievement tests tend to be
positive. Several projects report either continuous
achievement gains for experimental groups over control
groups or a gradually evolving significance of the
experimental group scores over those of the control
group. This latter phenomenon is often termed a
OCR for page 196
196
"sleeper" effect. However, it might more accurately be
called weak program impact as the stronger programs show
initial and continuing gains in achievement. In the
Perry project, these gains become stronger each year,
including the last test point at age 19, when a test of
general competency was given.
ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
While it appears difficult to avoid the use of
standardized assessment procedures for summative testing,
two alternatives seem feasible. The first is the develop-
ment of instruments that measure factors outside the
confines of standardized tests. Efforts to create tests
of emotional development, cognitive style, self-concept,
etc. have had a history of failure in early childhood
assessment; the examples of Follow Through and National
Planned Variation Head Start are well known. There
appears to be little possibility that psychometrically
sound instruments could be developed, even with a massive
infusion of funds. Other testing procedures have shown
potential in programs such as the Educational Development
Corporation's Project Torque to assess redevelopment of
mathematical concepts and in High/Scope's efforts to
assess the development of language competency through
generative testing procedures. (In a generative test,
students provide both questions and answers or have full
control over the sophistication of their responses.)
The High/Scope Cognitively Oriented Curriculum is
based on the idea that the child generates his or her own
learning within a structure designed and supported by
teachers. The dynamic learning situation is drawn from
developmental theory, in part Piagetian, and includes
materials for the child, encouragement by the teacher to
use these materials, and questions by the teacher to
extend the child's thinking or highlight underlying
errors and contradictions in reasoning. The questions
and activities initiated by the teacher are not meant to
provide the "right way" but to allow the child to reason
at the limits of his or her developmental level.
Given this orientation toward education, criteria for
evaluating the program must reflect the experience of the
child in the classroom, for to educate one way and assess
another is hardly appropriate. The evaluation procedure
should reflect important variables for adult success, yet
it should be perceived in a broader way than simply as
OCR for page 197
197
measurement of outcome variables. It should reflect the
conditions under which the outcomes were developed.
While classroom observations can be summative in nature
when defined as necessary conditions for a curriculum or
for specific operational goals, usually they are
conceived as formative or process assessment. Basically,
observation of the climate of learning is essential to
determining the "cost" of whatever is learned.
In designing a "generative" testing situation, several
additional criteria would have to be met. The instrument
would have to allow the child to express what he or she
knows in a functional way. The child should be able to
construct answers so that they reflect his or her capacity
to think and express concepts. The situation must be
supportive of whatever the student produces so that the
answers are not either right or wrong but simply an
expression of his or her best ability. The situation
should have supportive elements in it--friends or others
with whom the student can work, familiar materials,
opportunities to express the strengths of his or her
educational career to date. This format does not call
for a sampling of the universe of possible test questions,
but rather for a situation in which the student can
express strengths and weaknesses by generating original
material. Generative assessment has the student convey
his or her knowledge and abilities by constructing a
response that indicates his or her level of development.
The High/Scope Productive Language Assessment Tasks
(PLAT) is one example of a generative approach to
curriculum assessment. Developed over the last seven
years and used at the High/Scope Follow Through sites, it
measures the capacity of the child to use language as an
expression of conceptual ability.
One form of the PLAT battery incorporates two tasks,
reporting and narrating. In the reporting task, children
are given identical sets of unstructured materials and
asked to make anything they want to make. After 20
minutes they are asked to write about how they made
whatever they made and are allowed 30 minutes to complete
their stories. The children are permitted to interact
with one another during all phases of the task. In the
narrating task, each child is given a set of relatively
unstructured materials to "help you make up a story."
After about 25 minutes of free (and usually dramatic)
play on a carpeted floor, the children are asked to write
a make-believe or pretend story. As in the reporting
task, the children are permitted to interact with one
another as they play and write.
OCR for page 198
198
While not a complete instrument, PLAT does represent
the type of assessment procedure that is being developed
by the sponsors of Follow Through, who represent child-
centered and open-framework types of curricula. Such an
instrument could be widely used to tap the abilities of
children not assessed by regular batteries, abilities
that in many respects reflect the highest goals of most
educational programs. Instruments that respect the
individual in the context of the culture offer a
promising area for further development.
A second alternative to standardized tests is to
employ direct measures of success. These are more
meaningful measurement methods than either IQ scores or
achievement test results, which represent success only
indirectly. Such "hard" measures as placement in special
education classes or other special service programs and
grade retention are important because they reflect actual
decisions by schools to manage youngsters and have very
real cost consequences. Each year of school that a child
repeats increases the costs of total education by at least
8 percent. Placement in a special education program often
quadruples the cost of education each year that the young-
ster remains in such a program. Once assigned to such
programs most youngsters remain in them until leaving
school." These costs are the direct costs of education
and not some delayed future expenditure.
Using the High/Scope economic cost study as a model
(Weber et al. 1978), the Consortium for Longitudinal
Studies pooled the information from several of the older
and more complete studies of special education programs
(see Figure 2). These findings demonstrate the ability
of early education to affect public expenditures; they
present a powerful assessment procedure to judge early
education effectiveness.
On the whole, summative measures generally depend on
intellectual and achievement test results to assess the
outcomes of early education programs. While the
1While the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) increases the likelihood of service
for youngsters who qualify, the pressures on schools to
be responsive to disadvantaged children with learning
difficulties without resorting to special education
placement means new--and no doubt costly--alternatives
must be provided.
OCR for page 199
199
Percent
40
30
10
20 ; I I
in ~
o
Legend
control
Program
Totals Gordon Gray Weikart Levenstein Miller
Program Children 64 36 58 69 93
Control Children 20 17 65 23 16
Significance .052 .017 .096 .004 .689
Pooled Significance Level p .0002 (two tailed)
FIGURE 2 Percent of program and control children in
special education. (Source: Consortium for Longitudinal
Studies. Lasting Effects After Preschool. Final
report. HEW Grant 90C-1311 to the Education Commission
of the States. 1978.)
appropriateness of these results for either the assessment
of children or the program may be questioned, they are
widely employed as a means of judging a specific program--
against other programs or against its own goals. More
effective criteria begin to be available as a longitudinal
study continues. When children are beyond the third
grade, broadly conceived economic measures, which produce
data that are meaningful to both the educator and the
taxpayer, can be used as a very effective means of judging
long-term outcomes. Indeed, cost-benefit findings are
sufficiently powerful to directly affect public policy
regarding early childhood education. Their power exceeds
either IQ scores or achievement records in the final
analysis.
LONG-TERM SUMMATIVE MEASURES
Long-term summative assessment of early education
effectiveness is only now taking place as the passage of
time makes such studies possible. Measurements made 10
OCR for page 200
200
and 15 years after an early education experience focus
almost entirely on the actual performance of the subjects.
Job performance, college attendance, receipt of welfare,
crime and delinquency records, family formation, relation-
ship with family and friends, supervisor ratings,
earnings, etc. all form a basis for evaluation. The
longitudinal follow-up has now left the general field of
child development and moved into a dozen specialized
disciplines. All assessment procedures are characterized
by concrete performance indices. Gone is the need to
assess academic achievement or intellectual ability.
These are only signs on the way to real-world performance.
There are special assessment problems at this level.
One is, of course, identifying effective indicators of
"quality of life." Another problem is income. Earnings
indicators must differentiate participants as to those
who receive welfare, those with legitimate jobs, and
those "on the cash economy. Another assessment issue is
the categorization of the manner in which young adults
approach economic decision making. Benefits paid to
workers such as sick leave, emergency leave, unemployment
compensation, etc., reflect an ethic of assistance.
Young adults today make financial decisions to maximize
income and personal purpose. How are young adults to be
"scored" who work the economic system to maximize personal
gain, taking sick leave when not ill, etc.? Thus the
breakthrough to real-world measures does not simplify the
assessment problem. Complex issues remain to be resolved.
On the whole, long-term longitudinal assessment must
move from academic "place marker" variables into the
world of hard performance and economic measurement. High
priority should be given to establishing baseline data
for the economic performance of adults from nonmainstream
backgrounds and to closer monitoring of the later perform-
ance of children who experience various interventions in
early childhood. This requires the involvement of
disciplines outside educational psychology.
OCR for page 201
201
REFERENCES
Bloom, B.
(1964) Stability and Change in Human
.
Characteristics. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
for Longitudinal Studies
Lasting effects of early education.
Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development.
Consortium
(1981)
Jensen, A.
(1979)
Bias in Mental Testing.
Press.
Karnes, M. B.
(1973) Evaluation and implications of research with
young handicapped and low-income children. In
J. C. Stanley, ea., Compensatory Education for
Children, Ages 2 to 8.
New York: The Free
Baltimore, Md.: The
Johns Hopkins Press.
Miller, B., and Dyer, J.
(1975) Four preschool programs: their dimensions and
effects. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development 40:5-6.
Schweinhart, L. J., and Weikart, D. P.
(1980) Young children grow up: the effects of the
Perry Preschool Program on youths through age
15. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational
Research Foundation (Series No. 7).
l
Smilansky, M.
(1979) Priorities in Education:
and Conclusions.
Stallings, Je
(1975) Implementation and child effects of teaching
practices in Follow Through classrooms.
Monographs of the Society for Research in
. .
Child Development 40 (7-8, Serial No. 163).
Weber, C. U., Foster, P. S., and Weikart, D. P.
(1978) An economic analysis of the Ypsilanti Perry
Preschool Project. Monographs of the
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation
(Series No. 5).
Weikart, D. P., Bond, J. T., and McNeil, J.
(1978a) Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: preschool
years and longitudinal results through fourth
grade. Monographs of the High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation (Series No. 3)
Preschool: Evidence
World Bank Paper No. 323.
.
OCR for page 202
202
Weikart, D. P., Epstein, A., Schweinhart, L., and Bond,
J. T.
(1978b) Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum Demonstration
Project: preschool years and longitudinal
results. Monographs of the High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation (Series
l
NOe 4)e
Zigler, Ee' and Butterfield, E.
(1968) Motivational aspects of changes in IQ test
performance of culturally deprived nursery
school childrene Child Development 39:1-14
Zigler, Be, and Valentine, Je, ease
(1979) Project Head Start, A Legacy of the War on
Poverty New York: The Free Press e
e
Representative terms from entire chapter:
disadvantaged children
