Contextual Effects of Prekindergarten Classrooms for Disadvantaged Children on Cognitive Development: The Case of Chapter 1

Abstract

This study explores the effects of the social context of Chapter 1 prekindergarten classrooms on children's learning. Chapter 1 (also called Title I) is a federal government preschool program directed at children in lowincome schools who are at risk of later school failure. Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and a sample of 677 4-year-olds in 55 1990-1991 Chapter 1 prekindergarten classes in 5 states, the study explores factors that influence gains on the Preschool Inventory (PSI) over the preschool year. Social context is defined here mainly in terms of the cognitive and social composition of the classroom. Contextual factors defined in terms of demographics are shown to be related to learning, but the average cognitive level of the class is not. On average, children learn less in classrooms with high concentrations of minorities, children with special needs, recent immigrants, and children whose mothers have little education. The study explores differential effects of racial concentration on race differences in learning. Policy implications are discussed.

Using Multilevel Analyses to Study the Effectiveness of Science Curriculum Materials

“…The first CTA study and its replication the following year met the expectations that a curriculum unit with a high rating for instructional quality (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2001) would result in positive outcomes overall and significant differences in favour of the new curriculum unit. The ANCOVA analyses showed that students' understanding of the target ideas as measured by the post-test assessment was higher with the new unit and analyses of disaggregated student demographic data (gender, ethnicity/race, socioeconomic status [SES], English language literacy and special education status) showed that subgroups of students learning with the new condition nearly always outscored their peers in the comparison condition (Lynch et al, 2005(Lynch et al, , 2007.…”

“…Further exploratory analysis revealed that students in both treatment and comparison classrooms containing a high percentage of AfricanÁAmericans had lower pretest scores (Figure 3). Lee et al, 1998).…”

“…In addition, ANCOVA results have the advantage of being easily presented and discussed across the boundaries of researchers and practitioners (e.g. Lynch et al, 2005). Moreover, true experimental studies that randomise at student level for short term curriculum units can be impractical or impossible, given conditions of school systems (cf.…”

“…Analytically, the attention to classroom contextual effects and the use of HLM analyses are warranted to account for systematic variability in the data caused by the non-random assignment of students to schools and classrooms. In prior work, SCALE-uP relied on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) techniques for detecting the effectiveness of a curriculum unit (Lynch et al, 2005(Lynch et al, , 2007. The motivation for this current paper was to explore the utility of HLM analyses for producing greater precision in quantifying the effects attributed to the implementation of curriculum units.…”

“…Student (single) level ANCOVA techniques on post-test scores with pre-tests as covariates were initially employed to test for significant curriculum differences (e.g. Lynch et al, 2005) although each student was not randomly placed in curriculum units and students were nested within classrooms and schools. SCALE-uP acknowledges that the choice of student level ANCOVA under these nested conditions is controversial (for a recent discussion, see Lederman & Flick, 2005).…”