Assessing the Evaluations of Early Childhood Education Programs

		  


		  
Chapter 8 - Early Reading First

		  
Introduction to the Original Evaluation (Excerpt)

		




		

Early Reading First began in 2001 as a grant program established as part of the No Child 
Left Behind Act to prepare preschool-aged children to enter formal schooling. Discretionary 
grants were given to preschools that largely serve low-income families to improve the 
age-appropriate language and reading skills of children to bolster the schools' already existing 
programs. ERF was based on prior research, which "shows that a high percentage of children 
from low-income families attend preschools that may successfully address other developmental 
domains but often fail to provide the language, cognitive, and early- reading instruction and 
activities necessary to develop skills to become successful readers."
		


John Burghardt and his colleagues at Mathematica Policy Research ("Mathematica 
team") conducted a U.S. Department of Education mandated evaluation of Early Reading First 
that was largely funded by the National Institute for Literacy. The team used a 
quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design to evaluate the impact of the program on 
professional development that teachers receive and children's oral language (expressive and 
receptive language and vocabulary), phonological awareness (rhyming, blending, segmenting), 
and print and letter knowledge (letter recognition). 
		


The Mathematica team found the program to be successful in improving aspects of 
classroom environments that were major foci of the ERF program and improving children's print 
and letter knowledge. They found no impact on children's phonological awareness or oral 
language. ERF had no significant effects on social emotional development. 
		


There are several concerns regarding the design of the study. The RDD included all sites, 
not just the sites surrounding the cutpoint. The sample size is small, which could contribute to 
misleading results. Finally, children in the funded sites differed from children in the unfunded 
sites on a variety of measures including race and ethnicity, having a language other than English 
spoken at home, and having foreign-born parents. If the children in the two groups differ, their 
assessment scores could confound the results of the evaluation and lead to problems with 
generalizability.
		


		

		  Continue Reading
		  



		

		


		

		  

			Comments
		  

		


		
		  This report is open to public comments, subject to review by the forum moderator and our discussion guidelines. To leave a comment, fill in the form below, or email us at welfareacademy@umd.edu.

			
		




		
There are currently no comments on this document

		

		


		

    		  

			
 
 				
Comment Form
 
			 	
Send to:
  				
* Name: (required)
 
 				
* Email: (required)
 
 				
Organization or Affiliation:
 
 				
Comment:
 
				 
 			
 
 		

 		

 		  

 					
 				
				
				
	
        	
        	

        	
 				

					
			
			Thank you for your submission.
		  

		

 		



 			
 
 	    

	  
	  

HOME - PUBLICATIONS - CONFERENCES - ABOUT US - CONTACT US