CAROLINA ABECEDARIAN PROGRAM

OVERVIEW

The Carolina Abecedarian Program began in 1972, with high-quality, developmentally-appropriate childcare provided for high-risk four-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 five. 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 studies in this guide use the same data, but examine different outcomes and different ages. The randomization approaches are the same throughout.

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 compared with the control group.

Table 1 presents a summary of findings from the studies in this guide.

Table 1: Findings by Age when Outcome was Measured and Whether Outcomes Resulted in a Positive Impact or No Impact (Null Finding).

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: High-risk children

The Carolina Abecedarian Project was conducted by the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. Children in the treatment group received child care for six to eight hours per day, five days per week through kindergarten entry. Some services, such as nutritional supplements, social work services and medical care were provided to control group families in order to ensure that those were not the only factors accounting for different outcomes between the two groups.

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).

In 1984, the program looked like the following.

In the school-age phase, families were each assigned a home-school resource teacher to help keep in contact with the school during the first three years the child was enrolled. Each parent received an individualized curriculum packet every week and encouraged to use the activities in the curriculum at least fifteen minutes each day with their children.

The control and experimental groups both receive nutritional supplements and basic health care throughout the program. The experimental group children start attending the educational daycare as early as six weeks of age, but nearly all are enrolled by three months of age. The daycare is open from 7:45am to 5:30pm every weekday for 50 weeks in the year. Transportation is provided to the children, both to the center and from the center. In the daycare, children are grouped by age into infants and toddlers. The infant group has a teacher-child ratio of one to three, while the four-year-olds have the largest ratio, one teacher for every six children. Overall, the program has 12 teachers and assistants and three administrative staff. The goal for the young children is to aid in their language development. The teacher-child interaction for these children is modeled after the typical middle-class mother’s dialogue with her child, only the daycare adds more structure and time to the dialogues with the individual children. A secondary set of goals at this age is the use of structured curricula to improve motor, social, and cognitive development. After the child’s third birthday, he or she is exposed to a systematic set of curricula that introduce science, math, and music to the children.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson S. (2002). Early Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.

Evaluated Population: Four cohorts of 104 infants categorized as high-risk by family circumstances were followed until 21 years of age. All families were under the poverty line. On average, mothers were 20 years old, had 10 years of education, were unmarried, lived in a multigenerational household, and reported no earned income (33 percent were on public assistance). The sample was 98 percent African American.

Approach: Families from the four cohorts were eligible for the study based on a high risk index made of parental education, income, maternal IQ score, history of social or emotional problems, evidence of educational retardation in other family members, intactness of the family, and need for public assistance. The mother was asked at length about her pregnancy and attitudes on childrearing.

Once a mother-child dyad was deemed eligible for the study, pairs of mothers were matched on IQ, age, education, and parity. Then families were randomly assigned to condition. 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).

Three children were found ineligible during the preschool intervention and not included in the data at all. One was diagnosed with retardation because of a seizure disorder undetectable until 6 months of age and was not included in analyses. Two other children were admitted later to the program because protective service officials insisted.

When children reached kindergarten, families were randomly assigned again to school-age experimental and control groups, creating four groups: the control/control group, which received no intervention at any time; the control/experiment group, which began as a control in preschool, but then was randomly assigned to the school-age intervention at kindergarten; the experimental/control, which began with the experimental condition and was randomly assigned to the control group at kindergarten; and the experimental/experimental group, which was randomly assigned to the experimental group at birth and then randomly assigned again to the experimental group at kindergarten.

When the children reached age 21, the authors measured intellectual level, academic skills, degree of self-sufficiency, and social adjustment defined by negative outcomes such as substance abuse, violence, and a criminal record.

Results: Reading scores of the preschool group at age 21 were significantly higher than the control group. Other measures of intellectual level were nonsignificant. None of the four groups were significantly different on cognitive or academic functioning at age 21. The preschool treatment group was significantly more likely than the preschool control to enroll in a four-year college or university (70 vs 67 percent) and to have skilled employment (67 vs 41 percent). The preschool treatment group was significantly less likely than the preschool control group to be a parent before the age of 20 (26 vs 45 percent) and significantly less likely to have used marijuana in the past month (18 vs 39 percent).

Effect sizes for reading by treatment group are the following: for the control/experiment group at age 8, effect size was 0.28, and it decreased to 0.11 by age 21; for the experiment/control group at age 8, effect size was 0.75, and it decreased to 0.28 by age 21; for the experiment/experiment group, effect size was 1.04 at age 8 and decreased to a value between 0.8 and 1 at age 12, then increased at age 15 within the same range of 0.8 and 1, and decreased to 0.79 at age 21.

The effect sizes for math by treatment group are the following: for the control/experiment group at age 8, the effect size was 0.11 and increased to 0.26 by age 21; for the experiment/control group, the effect size was 0.27 at age 8 and stayed about the same until age 15, where it decreased, then increased back to 0.26 at age 21; for the experiment/experiment group at age 8, the effect size is 0.64 and increased to 0.73 at age 21.

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.

Evaluated Population: This article does not provide detailed information on the sample of the four cohorts, but it is the same sample as the other articles in this guide. Most families were African American, all lived below the poverty line, and all children were in families that met the guideline for high risk during recruitment.

Approach: IQ of the four cohorts was measured at ages 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 12, 15, and 21 years old. Academic achievement in math and reading was measured at these times, but not at 6.5 years or younger.

Results:

Over time for the whole sample between ages three and 21, IQ scores declined. Both groups showed the same amount of change over time during follow-up for IQ and academic achievement. However, 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. Furthermore, children who received treatment had significantly higher scores on reading and math tests from ages 8 through 21.

Measures of achievement collected while treatment was ongoing showed an effect size for the program of 1.75, while measures of achievement collected during follow-up showed an effect size about half of that, 0.87.

Looking at IQ, academic achievement, and treatment, the authors found that the treatment has an indirect impact on academic achievement by means of IQ. The effect size of the program on reading achievement without accounting for IQ was 1.40. With IQ, the effect size of the program was 0.79. For math achievement not accounting for IQ, the effect size of the program was 0.86. When taking IQ into account, the effect size of the program on academic achievement was 0.40.

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.

Evaluated Population: The first two cohorts (out of four possible) of high-risk children followed from birth to age three. The mean maternal age of mothers participating in the experimental condition was 19.56 and 20.28 years in the control. The mean maternal IQ in the experimental group was 85.49 and 84.18 in the control. The mean maternal education was 10.45 years in the experimental group and 10.00 in the control group. The mean high risk score in the experimental group was 20.08, and 21.14 in the control group (the cutoff point for considering a family as “high risk” was 11).

At birth, 58.2 percent of the sample was living in a complex multigenerational household. This decreased to 6.7 percent by 8 years of age and increased to 11.7 percent by 15 years of age. A random sample of the local community shows that 2.1 percent of families lived in a complex multigenerational household. At birth, 10.0 percent of families were single parents (mother or father). By 8 years old, this increased to 43.3 percent, then decreased to 35.3 percent by 15 years old. The random sample of the local community showed that 37.5 percent of families were single-parent households.

Approach: Random assignment and the sample were the same as the above study, but only the first two cohorts were included in these analyses.

At follow-up ten years later (children were 15 years old), IQ, academic achievement, and school progress were measured.

Results: The percentage of each group who repeated a grade was highest for the control/control group, second highest for the control/experiment group, third for the experiment/experiment group, and fourth for the experiment/control group. Among children in the preschool treatment, 31.2 percent were ever held back a grade by age 15. For children in the preschool control, that number was 54.5 percent.

The findings for special education (assigned in kindergarten through 9^th grade) were similar—24.5 percent of the preschool treatment group had been placed in special education, compared to 47.7 percent of the preschool control group. The percentage of children assigned to special services in each group, from highest to lowest, was as follows: control/control, control/experiment, experiment/experiment, and experiment/control.

For all groups, IQ tended to decline over time, but the initial level varied by group membership, and children in treated groups had higher IQ scores than children in control groups throughout follow-up measurement. However, children in the control/experiment group who only received the school-age intervention had lower IQ scores than all the other groups. Higher IQ scores were associated with duration of treatment (if the child was treated in the preschool group, they tended to have a higher IQ than children in the control group. Higher IQ scores were associated with membership in the preschool group.

Reading achievement scores in the treatment groups were higher than the control groups from ages eight to 15. The experiment/experiment group had the highest scores from eight to 15, then the experiment/control group, then the control/experiment group, and the lowest scores over these measurements was the control/control group. For the experiment/experiment group and experiment/control group, reading scores measured at eight years old decreased at age 12, but increased again by age 15. For the control/experiment and control/control groups, reading achievement measured at age 15 was higher than their achievement at ages eight and 12. For the control/experiment group, there was a slight decline in reading achievement from age eight to 12, but for the control/control group, there was an increase from age eight to 12.

Math achievement scores decreased over time for all groups. The control/control and experiment/experiment groups experienced similar change in math achievement over time. From age eight to age 12, scores dropped more steeply than the other two treatment groups, but then slightly increased from age 12 to age 15. The experiment/control and control/experiment groups experienced a decline in math achievement from ages eight to 12, and then a slight increase by age 15, but not to the levels measured at age eight. By age 15, the experiment/experiment and experiment/control groups had no significant difference in scores. The same can be said for the control/experiment and control/control groups; however, the experiment/experiment and experiment/control groups still had higher math achievement scores at age 15 than the control/experiment and control/control groups.

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994).  Effects of Early Intervention on Intellectual and Academic Achievement: A Follow-Up Study of Children from Low-Income Families.  Child Development, 65(2), 684-698.

Evaluated Population: The population in this study was the same as the others in this guide (all four cohorts were used in this study). Among the subjects enrolled in the study, 98 percent were African American, average maternal IQ was 85 points, mean maternal age was 19.9 years when the target child was born (and ranged from 13 to 44 years), mean maternal education was 10.62 years, half of the mothers in both groups were teens (19 years or younger), and the median earned income reported by the families was none. The children were followed until age 12 by the time of this study.

Approach: Random assignment was the same as the other studies in this guide. This study examined all four cohorts of children up through age 12. IQ and academic achievement (math, reading, written language, and knowledge) were measured.

Results: Membership in the preschool treatment group, but not the school-age treatment group was significantly related to IQ score.

There were more cases (N=3, 1.15 percent of the entire sample) of mild mental retardation (IQ<70) than would have been predicted for a randomly selected group of this size with the given baseline population. These three children were in the preschool control group.

At age three, IQ scores were not significantly different. For both the preschool treatment and control groups, IQ increased by six months and then more by 12 months, but IQ then decreased for both groups until about two years of age. By six months old, the preschool treatment group scored higher on the IQ test than the preschool control group and this remained through 12 years of age.

When the preschool treatment and control groups were split into school-age treatment and control groups, the preschool treatment group, whether split into school-age control or treatment, retained higher IQ scores than the preschool control group through age 12. The preschool control group assigned to the school-age treatment group did experience an increase in IQ scores that remained higher than the control/control group, but the difference is not substantive. The difference in IQ scores for the experiment/control and experiment/experiment groups is not substantive for any points of measurement.

At 12 years of age, assignment to preschool treatment or control groups was significantly related to academic achievement on reading, knowledge and written language scores, but school age treatment was nonsignificant for all four achievement indicators.

Martin, S. L., Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. (1990). The prevention of intellectual impairment in children of impoverished families: Findings of a randomized trial of educational day care. American Journal of Public Health, 80(7), 844-847.

Evaluated Population: All children (N=120) randomly assigned were at high-risk for intellectual impairment, and were identified for this study through public health agencies and through hospitals. Most children were African American, all in the control group and 95 percent of the children in the experimental group. Most children in the study were firstborn, and most parents were single. Maternal age was about 21 years, maternal IQ around 85, and maternal education at approximately ten years.

Approach: Children were randomly assigned into the Abecedarian group (N=41) or the control group (N=45). Three subgroups of children were analyzed: impaired intellectual functioning (IQ < 71), borderline intellectual functioning (70 < IQ < 85), and normal intellectual functioning (IQ > 84). Note these are categories defined by the IQ score of the child. The children were tested at certain key ages (in months), six, 12, 18, 24, 36, 42, 48, and 54.

Results: The mean of IQ for the treatment group exceeded 100 at seven of eight assessments. Analyses taking into account maternal intellectual impairment and how stimulating the home environment is for the child’s cognitive development indicate that the experimental group children had significantly higher IQ scores compared with the control group children.

Some significant impacts were found regarding the classification of children into the impaired intellectual functioning, borderline intellectual functioning, and normal intellectual functioning groups. The percentage of children in the impeded group was significantly lower in the experimental group compared with the control group at 18, 36, and 48 months, but not six or 12 months. For the borderline and normal categories, the experimental group had a significantly higher percentage of children, compared with the control group, at 18, 24, 36, 42, 48, and 54 months of age.

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.

Evaluated Population: The four cohorts of 92 children at baseline whose school records could be obtained. These children are in high-risk families and were followed from birth through their third year in school by the time of this study. The mean maternal age in the experimental group was 19.65 in the experimental group and 20.42 in the control group. The mean maternal education was 10.55 in the experimental group and 10.08 in the control group. The mean maternal IQ was 85.39 in the experimental group and 84.25 in the control group. In the experimental group, 83 percent were female-headed families, 67 percent of the children in the study were first-born children, and 94 percent of families were black. In the control group, 75 percent were female-headed families, 60 percent of the children were first-born, and 100 percent of the families were black.

Approach: This study recorded grade retention in each of four conditions, the percentage of children who repeated a grade or not. This study examined all four cohorts through their third year in school.

Results: There was a significant relationship with repetition of a grade and the group in which the child was assigned. In the experiment/experiment group, 16 percent of children repeated a grade at least once by their third year in school. In the experiment/control group, 29 percent of children repeated a grade. In the control/experiment group, 38 percent of children repeated a grade. In the control/control group, 50 percent of children repeated a grade.

There was a relationship between intervention length and math and reading achievement. Children who received both the preschool intervention and the school-age intervention had better math achievement scores and better reading achievement scores at the third year in school than children who received one intervention or the other, and children who received only one intervention or the other had better scores than children who received no intervention at any time.

Pungello, E. P., Poe, M., & Graham, F. P. (2003). What's a good childhood education worth and why?: Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in the Abcedarian project. Paper presented at the SRCD Biennial meeting, Tampa Bay, FL.

Evaluated Population: 111 infants in 109 families in four cohorts recruited between 1972 and 1977. These infants were identified as high-risk because of their family’s circumstances. All children were born into low-income families, 25 percent lived with both parents at birth (intact families), average maternal education was 10 years, and the average age of mothers was 20 years.

Approach: This study used measures of academic achievement (assessed at age 15), scholastic self-concept (assessed at age 15), locus of control (assessed at age 15), and education level (assessed at age 21). This study used data from all four cohorts of children recruited into the program.

Results: There was no significant difference between the preschool treatment and preschool control group members on scholastic self-concept, academic locus of control, or general locus of control. Membership in the preschool intervention was significantly related to education level at age 21 (effect size=0.94). The effect size was reduced to 0.75 and the treatment rendered marginally significant when taking academic achievement at age 15 into account. By itself, academic achievement for the treatment group members was significantly higher than for the control group members.

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.

Evaluated Population: The first cohort of 109 children at baseline whose school records could be obtained. These children are in high-risk families and were followed from birth to age three. The mean maternal age in the experimental group was 19.56 in the experimental group and 20.28 in the control group. The mean maternal education was 10.45 in the experimental group and 9.98 in the control group. The mean maternal IQ was 85.49 in the experimental group and 84.18 in the control group. In the experimental group, 23 percent were intact families and 96 percent of families were black. In the control group, 26 percent were intact families and 100 percent were black.

Approach: IQ and academic achievement were measured from age six months to eight years of age. This study used data from the first cohort only.

Results: From six months through 96 months, IQ scores were consistently, significantly higher for the preschool intervention group than the control group.

For achievement in math and reading at years 2 and 3, scores were related to the amount of intervention received. The experiment/experiment group had the highest scores, experiment/control had lower, control/experiment had lower than that, and control/control had the lowest scores.

The percentage of children retained in grades kindergarten, 1, or 2, in this first cohort, from highest to lowest were as follows: control/control (50 percent of children in this condition), control/experiment (38 percent), experiment/control (29 percent), and experiment/experiment (16 percent).

Ramey, C. T., Yeates, K. O., & Short, E. J. (1984). The plasticity of intellectual development: Insights from preventive intervention. Child Development, 55(5), 1913-1925.

Evaluated Population: Ninety-eight families who had participated in the Carolina Abecedarian Project and who have children at high risk for developmental delay were assessed.

Approach: The children were randomly assigned to the control condition or the treatment at baseline. IQ and home-environment stimulation were measured throughout the program. IQ was measured at six, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months while home stimulation was measured at six, 18, 24, and 42 months.

Results: IQ was significantly higher in the experimental group children at 18, 24, 36, and 48 months, but not at six or 12 months. At 18 months, the experimental group’s IQ was a mean of 108.6, while the control group’s was 105.7. At 24 months, the two groups’ IQs were 96.6 and 85.0, respectively; 36, 101.7 vs 84.4; and 48, 102.7 vs 89. No impacts were found on home-environment stimulation. However, the ordering of the children was not found to vary significantly over time, suggesting, in relative IQ for individuals, considerable stability, despite impacts of the intervention on IQ for the treatment group overall.

Ramey, C.T. and F. A. Campbell. (1979). Compensatory Education for Disadvantaged Children. The School Review, 87(2), 171-189.

Evaluated Population: The oldest children were five years of age by the time of this study, and all four cohorts had been recruited. For the first two cohorts, mean maternal age for the experimental group was 18.60 years old and 21.18 for the control group. Mean maternal IQ was 82.5 for the experimental group and 81.96 for the control group. Mean maternal education for the experimental and control groups were 10.44 and 10.18, respectively. The median family annual income among families who reported income was $3,250 for the experimental and the same for the control group. Of the experimental group members, 57 percent of targeted children were first-borns, and 54 percent were of the control group members. The mean high-risk score of the experimental group was 19.33 and of the control group was 21.70.

Approach: Only the first two cohorts were examined in this study. Random assignment was the same as the other studies in this guide. Children had not yet been randomly assigned to the school-age intervention or control groups at the time of this study. Also, the authors report scores at four years of age, but only the second cohort had completed these measurements, and these children were three years of age.

The authors examined IQ, goal-directed behavior, and social confidence. There was a change in the standardized test used at the 12-, 24-, and 36-months of age measurements of IQ, so the findings are not reported here. Goal-directed behavior consisted of three ratings of behavior called “object orientation,” “goal directedness,” and “attention span.”

Results The experimental group scored significantly higher on goal-directed behavior than the control group at 18 months of age. The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group at six months, one year, and 18 months of age on social confidence.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION:

References

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994).  Effects of Early Intervention on Intellectual and Academic Achievement: A Follow-Up Study of Children from Low-Income Families.  Child Development, 65(2), 684-698.

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.

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., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.

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.

Martin, S. L., Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. (1990). The prevention of intellectual impairment in children of impoverished families: Findings of a randomized trial of educational day care. American Journal of Public Health, 80(7), 844-847.

Pungello, E. P, & Poe, M. (2003).  Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in the Abecedarian project.  Poster Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development.

Pungello, E. P., Poe, M., & Graham, F. P. (2003). What's a good childhood education worth and why?: Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in the Abcedarian project. Paper presented at the SRCD Biennial meeting, Tampa Bay, FL.

Ramey, C.T. & Campbell, F.A. (1979). Compensatory Education for Disadvantaged Children. School Review, 87(2), 171-189.

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(1), 2-14.

Ramey, C. T., Yeates, K. O., & Short, E. J. (1984). The plasticity of intellectual development: Insights from preventive intervention. Child Development, 55(5), 1913-1925.

Contact information:

Frances Campbell, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

University of North Carolina

Campus Box 8180

105 Smith Level Road

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8180

919-966-4529 (phone)

919-966-7532 (fax)

Campbell@mail.fpg.unc.edu

Web Site: www.fpg.unc.edu/~ABC/

Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s)

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. (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.

KEYWORDS: Education, Academic Achievement, Elementary School, High-Risk, Child Care, Infants (0-12 months), Toddlers (12-36 months), Children (3-11), Cognitive Development, Social/Emotional Health and Development, Early Childhood (0-5), Middle Childhood (6-11), Adolescence (12-17), Young Adulthood (17-24), Black/African American, Skills Training, Life Skills Training, Early Childhood Education, Other Education, Community-based, Counseling/Therapy, Males and Females (co-ed).

Program information last updated 12/16/10.

© Child Trends 2003