|
Guide
to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth
|
CAROLINA ABECEDARIAN PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The program was designed to enhance children's school readiness, to ease their transition into elementary school, and to investigate the short- and long-term effects of providing high-risk children with educational experiences early in life. The program began in 1972, with high-quality developmentally appropriate childcare provided for high-risk 4-month-old children. Care was provided five days a week, and focused on developing the cognitive, social, language, and gross motor skills of the children through age 5. Positive impacts have been found for participants during and following the program (ages 3-21), including higher IQ, reading and math scores, higher rates of college enrollment, and later childbearing.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
Target population: High-risk 4-month-old children
The Carolina Abecedarian Project was conducted by the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. Four yearly cohorts of children, born between 1972 and 1977, were randomly assigned to receive either high-quality child care (a total of 57 children) or no treatment (a total of 54 children). They were all born in poverty to mothers who had not graduated from high school, and 25 percent were living with both parents at the time of birth. Ninety-eight percent were African-American. The children were (on average) 4.4 months old when the intervention began. Children in the treatment group received child care for six to eight hours per day, five days per week through kindergarten entry at age 5 (Horacek, Ramey, Campbell, Hoffman & Fletcher, 1987). Some services, such as nutritional supplements, social work services and medical care were provided to no-treatment group families in order to ensure that those were not the only factors accounting for different outcomes between the two groups (Ramey & Campbell, 1991).
The caregiver-to-infant ratio in the child care center was 1:3 initially, and increased to 1:6 as children got older (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). The activities that teachers carried out targeted four areas: cognitive and fine motor skills, social and self-help skills, language and gross motor skills. Activities were individualized for infants and children based on readiness. As the children reached age 3 or 4, the child care center became a preschool program with areas in the classroom for a variety of activities. Activities were designed to seem playful and spontaneous to the children. Teachers were trained to place a special emphasis on language development by speaking with children about their daily lives in a developmentally appropriate way (Ramey & Campbell, 1991).
· Number of Children in Program: 57 in the treatment group, 54 in the no-treatment group.
· Length: Five years.
· Intensity: Six to eight hours per day, five days per week.
· Service Delivery Mode: High-quality child care.
EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM
(See the "Description" section, above, for a description of the study's methodology.)
Evaluated population: 111 children born in poverty between 1972 and 1977 (57 experimental, 54 control) to mothers who had not graduated from high school; 25 percent were living with both parents at the time of birth. Ninety-eight percent were African-American. The children were (on average) 4.4 months old when the intervention began.
Outcome: Results from the Carolina Abecedarian Project have been published in numerous articles and books. Follow-up data on the participants have been obtained and published through age 21; participants were assessed at ages 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 12, 15 and 21 (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey, 2001). The attrition rate was very low-of the original 111 participants, 104 were followed up at age 21.
As early as age 3, children in the treatment group had significantly higher scores on IQ tests than children in the no-treatment group, and the difference persisted through age 21 (Campbell et al., 2001). The participants who benefited the most had mothers with low IQ scores (Ramey, Campbell, Burchinal, Skinner, Gardner, & Ramey, 2000). Furthermore, children who received treatment had significantly higher scores on reading and math tests from age 8 through age 21 (Campbell et al., 2001). Regarding grade retention, by age 15, 31.2 percent of the treatment group subjects had been retained, compared to 54.5 percent of the no-treatment group. The findings for special education were similar-24.5 percent of the treatment group had been placed in special education, compared to 47.7 percent of the no-treatment group (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). By age 21, 35 percent of the treatment group had graduated from or were enrolled in a four-year college, compared to 14 percent of the no-treatment group. In addition, those in the treatment group were an average of one year older than those in the no-treatment group at the birth of their first child (19.1 years vs. 17.7 years; FPG web site, see below).
One additional component of the Abecedarian study should be noted. At school entry, children from the treatment and no-treatment groups were randomly assigned to receive either the "Abecedarian K-2 Educational Support Program" or no support in kindergarten through second grade. This resulted in the creation of three groups: (1) early and continuing intervention (birth through second grade); (2) early intervention only (birth through age 5); and (3) late intervention only (kindergarten through second grade). The K-2 program included educational support for children in school and at home, learning support over the summer, and teaching parents how to enhance their children's education at home. The most effective condition through age 12 (when comparing IQ scores and tests of reading and math) was the early plus continuing intervention, followed by early intervention only, followed by late intervention only. However, by age 15, benefits remained for only the first two groups (Ramey et al., 2000).
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION
Link to program curriculum:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/main/for_providers.cfm
References:
Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231-242.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.
Horacek, H. J., Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Hoffman, K. P., & Fletcher, R. H. (1987). Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk children. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(5), 758-763.
Ramey, C. T., & Campbell, F. A. (1991). Poverty, early childhood education, and academic competence: The Abecedarian experiment. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy (pp. 190-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects of early intervention on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 2-14.
Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s)
Child
Trends. (2001). School readiness: Helping communities get children ready for
school and schools ready for children (Research brief). Washington, DC:
Child Trends.
Manlove, J., Terry-Humen,
E., Romano Papillo, A., Franzetta, K., Williams, S., & Ryan, S. (2002). Preventing
teenage pregnancy, childbearing, and sexually transmitted diseases: What the
research shows (Research brief).
Washington
,
DC
: Child Trends.
Manlove, J.,
Terry-Humen, E., Romano Papillo, A., Franzetta, K., Williams, S., & Ryan, S.
(2001). Background for community-level work on positive reproductive health
in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Redd,
Z., Brooks, J., & McGarvey, A. (2002). Educating
America
's youth: What makes a difference (Research brief).
Washington
,
DC
: Child Trends.
Redd, Z., Brooks, J., &
McGarvey, A. (2001). Background for community-level work on educational adjustment in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Halle, T.,
Zaff, J., Calkins, J., & Margie, N. G. (2000). Background for community-level work on school readiness: A review of definitions, assessments, and investment strategies. Part II: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors to school readiness. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.
SUMMARY & CATEGORIZATION
Program categorized in this guide according to the
following:
Evaluated participant ages: Infants (at program debut) /
Program age ranges in the Guide: 0-5
Program components: child care/early childhood education
Measured outcomes: education/cognitive, reproductive health
Keywords: academic achievement, adolescents, Black/African American, Child Care,
Children, Counseling/Therapy, Early Childhood Education, elementary, High-Risk,
manual, co-ed, Infants, Life Skills, Life Skills Training, Middle School, Skills
Training, Toddlers, young adults
Program information last updated 3/14/07
