# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TEDxCincy - Jeff Edmondson - The Key to Educational Improvement: Data and How We Use It

# data[].attributes.body
This article addresses what to do with data. Doing assessments for the sake of doing them and not collecting data is a waste of everyone's time. Data driven decision making is something that is working in schools. Collecting, analyzing, using, and reflecting on data can have big impacts on teachers and students. Sufficient training, sticking to the core issues, and not overwhelming staff is discussed as advice on how to get started. District wide accountability plans are suggested to ensure data is being used like it is intended. Becoming data-driven decision makers requires a shift in the culture of a school, good questioning and inquiry, and excellent communication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If America’s education system is outdated, how can we evolve? | Derrell Bradford | Big Think

# data[].attributes.body
"Tai Basurto considers herself a professional development junkie. Here, she shares why ongoing training is key to advancing teaching practice, how it has had a positive effect on her classroom, and why it is essential to widespread educational improvement."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professional development - nurturing the teacher as learner: Tai Basurto at TEDxWellsStreetED

# data[].attributes.body
This picture shows the four essential dimensions of school climate, "safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, and the institutional environment." Instead of being singularly focused (NCLB, 2002), school reform should be comprehensive and not compartmentalized.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Multidimensional Impact of School Climate

# data[].attributes.subject
The Multidimensional Impact of School Climate

# data[].attributes.body
School Climate is everything. Benefits of a positive school climate are endless, but here are a few: " improved feelings of safety (physical, social, and emotional), increased engagement by teachers and students, and educators modeling and encouraging attitudes that support learning and a growth mindset." A healthy school climate makes teachers, students, and visitors feel at ease. It is important that everyone who enters a school feels safe in the space and is ready to learn or teach. "Culture is the heartbeat of a school and with each beat it is spreading health or toxicity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 has ushered in a new paradigm for student achievement that now includes nonacademic indictors in addition to measuring proficiency in math, English language arts, and English-language proficiency (for English-language learners), as well as high school graduation rates. These nonacademic indicators are aimed at providing a broader measure of student performance and include:

Student engagement

Educator engagement

Access and completion of advanced coursework

Postsecondary readiness

School climate and safety

Oftentimes, educational reform is singularly focused, as evidenced by the emphasis on student achievement and testing that resulted from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. In education, issues of student/educator engagement, access to advanced coursework, and postsecondary readiness are viewed as separate issues. Instead of using a compartmentalized approach to these issues, schools should be considering a more comprehensive approach, particularly as it relates to school climate, which serves as a foundation for all factors impacting a school's learning environment.

According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, school climate is connected to students' level of engagement in their coursework, which impacts student success. Student success creates a foundation for advanced coursework and postsecondary readiness. The Alliance suggests administrators examine how the multiple issues included in ESSA's nonacademic indicators fit together under the umbrella of school climate.

What exactly is school climate and how does it impact teaching and learning, safety, relationships, and the school environment? What are the challenges faced by leadership regarding school climate and where does one start the improvement process?
School Climate Defined
The National School Climate Center defines school climate as "the quality and character of school life based on patterns of students', parents' and school personnel's experience of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures." According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, a positive school climate is "an environment that reflects a commitment to meeting and developing the academic, social, and emotional needs of every student." The benefits of a positive school climate have been well documented and include improved feelings of safety (physical, social, and emotional), increased engagement by teachers and students, and educators modeling and encouraging attitudes that support learning and a growth mindset. These benefits lay the foundation for a culture of continual improvement.

In addition, a positive school climate has been shown to impact the frequency of student substance abuse, psychiatric problems, and aggressive behavior, including harassment. Thesebenefits support the entire learning environment.

The climate of a school is often described as what people feel when they enter an institution. To gain an understanding of this "feel," consider a school that has a toxic climate. This school lacks systems and possesses a culture of dysfunction. No one wants to be there and the school is in disarray. This school lacks appropriate resources for students, thereby impeding student learning, and the personnel are not friendly. Conversely, a healthy school climate offers a sense of belonging and systems are in place to ensure successful learning for all students. Culture is the heartbeat of a school and with each beat it is spreading health or toxicity.
Dimensions of School Climate
When using school climate as a comprehensive approach to school improvement, it is imp ortant to identify its four dimensions: safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, and the institutional environment.

In considering school safety, the first thing that often comes to mind is school violence. However, school violence doesn't just happen. There are issues and circumstances that serve as precursors to the violence. Often, perpetrators of violence have been victims of bullying or have a chronic history of noncompliant behavior or trauma.

Some schools implement targeted bullying programs to address the issue of school violence; however, research has found such efforts to be only marginally helpful in the absence of a positive school climate. Continual school-climate improvement and bullying prevention measures are needed in combination to promote a sustained positive school climate that fosters a responsible and engaged school community that flourishes.
Tips to bolster safety:

Create a solid leadership team, including students, to guide school-climate improvement work.

Build an environment of respect, empathy, and kindness by modeling these behaviors throughout the day.

Engage in dialogue about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other identity issues in order to build a bridge between differences.

Address bullying and all forms of intolerance swiftly and provide support as well as guidance to all individuals involved.

Analyze (and update when needed) school policies, procedures, and practices to ensure they are equitable and student friendly.

A major component to school safety is having a solid foundation of interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationships are a key element in "student connectedness," a term which relates to a student's feelings about being a part of their school, whether adults at school care about them as an individual, and their learning actually mattering. Students who are connected have close relationships with people at school and have positive relationships with adults. Interpersonal relationship skills promote healthy relationships and interactions between staff and students and among the students themselves, in addition to building the climate of effective support that students need to be successful. Fostering these bonds between students and teachers is an important step in meeting students' academic, social, and emotional needs, which helps promote a positive school climate.
Tips for building interpersonal relationships:

Practice "coffee-cup diplomacy." Make community a priority by taking every opportunity to mingle among students and staff so you can get to know them on a personal level.

Support staff with training on effective classroom management and teaching methods to build a positive learning environment.

Provide professional development and support for all staff (facility managers, lunchroom personnel, paraprofessionals, teachers, and all support staff).

Instill trusting and caring relationships to promote open communication.

Practice unconditional positive regard. Let people know they are appreciated and capable of great things.

The existence of healthy interpersonal relationships between the staff, students, administration, and community creates an optimal foundation for teaching and learning. Powerful teaching reflects a variety of instructional strategies designed to engage students and support high academic achievement. High academic achievement is achieved through a rigorous curriculum, with rigor often defined as increased complexity of a learning task. However, this definition leaves the component of student autonomy out of the equation.

Without student autonomy, ownership of learning is less likely to occur. As schools provide a healthy climate where students feel the support of caring adults and safe enough to take risks, student ownership of learning will increase.
Tips for improving teaching and learning:

Support cultural competence through pre-service and in-service trainings aimed at developing individual awareness of cultural identity and cultural differences.

Fully prepare teachers by providing rich professional learning opportunities geared toward supporting rigorous teaching and instructional strategies.

Support teachers in using formative assessments, which involve students and teachers continually gathering evidence of learning throughout a lesson (monitoring on steroids).

Promote student engagement by training teachers for rigor.

As schools begin to focus on their climate and culture, administrators also need to be paying attention to the institutional environment. According to the National School Climate Center, the institutional environment includes two dimensions of school life: the physical surroundings and the positive engagement of students in school. The goal of an optimal institutional environment is to provide appealing, supportive, and suitable conditions that welcome all individuals. Research indicates that improving the institutional environment can enhance feelings of safety and is conducive to improved learning.
Tips on improving institutional environment:

Implement the "broken-windows theory," which states disorder will lead to more disorder. Pick up trash, keep paint fresh, and address broken equipment and structures immediately.

Encourage pride in the school building by modeling respect for your surroundings.

Create a gratitude board in the staff lounge and hallways to shift the focus from negative to positive.

School climate impacts every dimension of school life and requires leadership committed to growing their community. Leaders need to begin by modeling the shift in behavior. Examine leadership techniques-are you leading from the top down or alongside staff and students? Gather a coalition of the willing to support and infuse school climate work from the inside out. School climate improvement will often require second order change, which requires a new way of thinking. As leaders gather a coalition of the willing and lead the change as a co-participant, a climate change will follow.
Cheryl Spittler, MSEd, is a staff developer and expert in classroom management with 20 years of classroom experience. She served as a lead trainer in the redesign of the Bureau of Indian Education curriculum to integrate the Common Core State Standards. Her curriculum work has taken her to both rural and urban schools, where she worked with single schools as well as entire districts. In addition to developing curriculum/instructional design, Ms. Spittler has worked as a classroom teacher and university professor of special education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Multidimensional Impact of School Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 has ushered in a new paradigm for student achievement that now includes nonacademic indictors in addition to measuring proficiency in math, English language arts, and English-language proficiency (for English-language learners), as well as high school graduation rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amy Lawson, a fifth-grade teacher at Silver Lake Elementary School in Middletown, Del.(AP Photo/Steve Ruark)

For years now education leaders have been pushing onto school districts school reforms that don't show any sign of working while giving short shrift to those that have a track record of working. Gary Ravani, a 35-year public school teacher and president of the California Federation of Teachers' Early Childhood/K-12 Council, explains in this post.

There is a story about a guy who banged his head against a stone wall because "it felt so good when he stopped." It's time that we stop banging our heads against the wall trying to implement school reforms that are ill-conceived, and it's time for policymakers to look at reforms that have actually succeeded in raising achievement for challenged populations of students.

The Consortium on Chicago School Research, in Organizing Schools for Improvement, studied schools attempting reform in that city. Some schools with very similar demographics ended up with very dissimilar outcomes. Schools that showed success embraced "Essential Supports." These supports, in essence, are as follows:

leadership-principals organized their staffs and community assets in support of student learning;

improved community ties-the principal and school staff reached out and made school more welcoming for parents and created links to other community institutions;

increased professional capacity-a focus on quality professional development and continuous improvement;

student-centered learning environment-an environment where students feel safe and supported to engage in ambitious intellectual activity; and

instructional guidance-gathering the whole school community around a common vision of curriculum and instruction promoting ambitious academic achievement.

Another reform model that increased student achievement is detailed in Improbable Scholars, by University of California Berkeley Professor David Kirp. Although Kirp concentrates on one school district, in Union City, New Jersey, he also references districts implementing a similar model, including Sanger in California.

Kirp emphasizes that there are no "silver bullets," no overnight transformations available in reform that works. It just takes hard work sustained over time by stable school staffs and managers.

The essentials of what makes Union City a success are "familiar to any educator with a pulse." These include: high-quality preschool; "word-soaked" classrooms; true bilingual education; coherent curricula; test scores used to diagnose problems; teachers involved in continuous learning; schools enlisting parents as partners; and, the schools maintain a climate of high expectations, caring, and trust.

Most importantly, Kirp talks about what doesn't work: e.g., school chiefs who are "long on pressure and short on supports." He also notes that absent in Union City are mass firings of teachers, the closing of schools, Teach For America, and charter schools.

One California experiment in what works in school reform is known as the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). QEIA awarded certain "low performing" schools extra funding if they agreed to conform to a number of policy changes including reducing class sizes and keeping an experienced teaching staff at the school.

Researchers Courtney Malloy and Andrea Nee completed a study, Pathways to Change-Learning from Exemplary QEIA Schools, that found that schools adopting certain common features could be considered "exemplary;" that is, they improved their state ranking by at least three deciles.

The features uncovered by the study were: exemplary leadership; a common vision; willingness to innovate; ongoing and open communication; and drive and dedication. In addition, for collaboration to serve as a gateway for change, a school climate of trust and respect, as well as supportive leadership, are absolute requirements.

The National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academies (including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Council of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine), wrote in a 2011 report that standardized test scores "fall short of providing a complete measure of student performance."

The "conventional wisdom" of the self-styled education reformers is that, in education, "money doesn't matter." The QEIA experiment proves this wrong. Teachers interviewed at the exemplary schools asserted that a relatively expensive reform-class size reduction-was central to their success. Other keys were collaboration time, mentors, and coaches to provide quality professional development for teachers. These are all "cost" items. In Chicago, state spending per child is half again what California's is, and in New Jersey spending is almost twice as much.

Reform strategies outlined in this post are models of reform demonstrated to work. These models emphasize the importance of school leadership that can organize teachers, parents, and communities around a consensus-based goal. All emphasize that key supports must be in place for teachers and students. Such reform does not scapegoat teachers or demonize their unions. All provide evidence that it is time to stop banging our heads against the wall of false reform and begin implementing reform that works.

Today's Headlines The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years now education leaders have been pushing onto school districts school reforms that don't show any sign of working while giving short shrift to those that have a track record of working. Gary Ravani, a 35-year public school teacher and president of the California Federation of Teachers' Early Childhood/K-12 Council, explains in this post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Child-Parent Center's Preschool to 3rd Grade Program is a model, supported by decades of research, for how schools can get students off to the right start.
Early childhood education continues to be a high priority across the nation. Total public funding at all levels now exceeds $30 billion annually (Council of Economic Advisers, 2016), which amounts to a doubling of investment over the past two decades (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999), while public-private sector initiatives, such as Pay for Success, have also helped expand access (Temple & Reynolds, 2015). Today, nearly half of all four-year-olds in the country participate in prekindergarten and Head Start (National Institute of Early Education Research, 2017), and more than 80% of kindergartners attend full-day programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2017), both of which represent large increases from previous decades.

Yet much of this increasing emphasis does not take into account two unfortunate realities. First, the size of the achievement gap by family income is large and increasing in the U.S. and internationally (Belfield & Levin, 2007; Braveman & Gottleib, 2014; Piketty, 2014). In the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 20% of U.S. 4th graders from low-income families were proficient readers compared to 52% of students from higher-income families (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). This 32-point gap, which has increased by a third over the past decade, indicates that, to be effective, services must be proportionate to the need (Braveman & Gottleib, 2014; Takanishi, 2016).

A one- or two-year preschool program, even if high-quality, can reduce this gap by only about a third (Barton & Coley, 2009; Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2017). Early gaps in school readiness magnify over time and contribute to disparities in achievement proficiency and school completion. To realistically address these challenges, multiyear and multicomponent approaches that integrate services are needed.

The second unfortunate reality is that despite the overall evidence of positive benefits for good-quality programs, impacts of early childhood programs across all cultural and social contexts vary substantially in magnitude, consistency, and duration. Too much variation in program quality is a major reason, as is the fact that later education is not aligned to early learning (Camilli et al., 2010; Reynolds & Temple, 2008; Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones, 2006). Even if large and sustained effects and greater alignment do occur, these programs are rarely scaled to entire populations.

Given the size of achievement disparities, the relatively modest levels of achievement proficiency of students worldwide, and the limited reach of current programs, longer and more comprehensive strategies are needed. They also must have the capacity to scale since only a small fraction of programs are ever scaled to the population level (O'Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009; Spoth et al., 2013). Multilevel programs in the first decade of life can redress these trends.

Preschool to 3rd grade (P-3) approaches, including the Chicago-based Child-Parent Center Preschool to 3rd Grade Program (CPC-P3), serve as models for scaling and sustaining an evidence-based program. CPC opened in 1967 with funding from Title I (which had been introduced just two years earlier, as part of the landmark Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965). Although CPC started out as a comprehensive preschool program, it soon began to offer continuing services in kindergarten and the early grades as well, in hopes of avoiding the low achievement and family disengagement that seemed to follow the transition to local elementary schools (Reynolds, 2000). Supported by long-term evidence in the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) and an Investing in Innovation Grant from the U. S. Department of Education, CPC-P3 now provides comprehensive education and family support services in six Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin districts (Human Capital Research Collaborative, 2012; Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2016).

Three programs - Perry Preschool, Abecedarian Project, and the Child-Parent Centers (CPC) - are usually cited as evidence that high-quality early education increases long-term educational and economic success. But of these programs, only CPC is a currently implemented large-scale public program. Both Perry and Abecedarian were model demonstrations with attributes unlike nearly all contemporary programs. All Perry children had IQ scores that were two standard deviations below the national average, and each classroom was led by four teachers with master's degrees. Abecedarian was a university-based early education and care program beginning at three months of age, with very low child-to-staff ratios and a yearly cost per child in 2018 dollars of $19,454 (Reynolds & Temple, 2008). Perry's yearly costs per child were $13,659. At $6,796 per year, CPC costs per child are substantially lower than either program.
Preschool to 3rd grade strategies and principles
The concept of P-3 and a service continuum evolved during the early years of the War on Poverty (Reynolds & Temple, 2008; Zigler et al., 2006). Fundamental to P-3 is developmental continuity. This is the extent to which learning environments are consistent and predictable over time in promoting healthy adjustment, especially during transitions. The ability to continue services in the primary grades provides such beneficial continuity (Ou & Reynolds, 2006; Reynolds, 1994; Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2010).

Key principles of school improvement developed in the 1970s have been rarely applied to early learning (Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2017; Zigler & Styfco, 1993; Zigler & Trickett, 1978). Among these are principal leadership, school climate, and engaged learning communities (Bryk et al., 2010; Rury, 2016; Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008). A P-3 program that incorporates these principles - alongside a focus on curriculum reform, professional development, and small classes (Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2010) and newer comprehensive approaches for promoting effective school transitions - may not only have larger effects on development but may also help ensure that achievement gaps are closed and gains sustained.

In 2015, the U. S. Department of Education commissioned case studies of P-3 alignment and differentiated instruction for five identified P-3 models (Manship et al., 2016). These included FirstSchool, Early Works, Sobrato Early Academic Language Program, Boston Public Schools, and CPC-P3. These models are more integrative than earlier approaches, such as Follow Through, but most emphasize instruction (Reynolds & Temple, 2008). Each of these programs had evidence of improved classroom quality and tailored instruction. Three showed improvement in student achievement, although only CPC-P3 had a comparison group (Reynolds & Temple, 2008). A RAND study of the State of Hawaii P-3 initiative also showed improvements in short-term achievement relative to comparison schools (Zellman & Kilburn, 2015). Unique to CPC-P3, however, is that it is a specific yet comprehensive model with key requirements for class size and site leadership, with data on the program's long-term effects into adulthood. As a school reform model, it implements a system of services as a school-family-university collaboration (Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2017).

And so, to date, the best-studied and most scalable P-3 model is the Child-Parent Center Preschool to 3rd Grade Program. By providing an integrated and well-aligned curriculum - along with family services and supports - during those formative years, CPC-P3 aims to ensure that its students master the foundational academic and social skills that will allow them to succeed in the more content-heavy curriculum of grade 4 and beyond (Takanishi, 2016; Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008; Zigler & Styfco, 1993).
Key elements of the CPC P-3 program
CPC places equal emphasis on preschool, kindergarten, and the early grades - thus, for example, preschool teachers have bachelor's degrees and are compensated on the same salary schedule as K-12 teacher. Similarly, all five levels of the program include the same six essential components:

1. A collaborative leadership team run by the head teacher.

2. Effective learning experiences provided through small classes (17 students or fewer), engaging instruction, and increased instructional time (often including full-day preschool).

3. An aligned curriculum consisting of carefully sequenced lessons that build on prior learning and are supported by teacher collaboration across grades.

4. Parent involvement and engagement through a menu-based set of services.

5. A professional development system that combines on-site facilitation and online professional learning modules (on topics such as STEM instruction and critical thinking).

6. Continuity and stability provided by co-located or close-by centers that provide year-to-year consistency.

Further, at all five levels, the curriculum gives roughly equal time to teacher-directed and child-initiated learning, with teachers regularly documenting these instructional practices in a classroom activity report. So, too, do CPC's outreach services continue throughout the program, including home visits and workshops for caregivers, who can select the activities that interest them from a set of choices informed by an annual needs assessment (Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2016).

In short, CPC's approach puts great emphasis on continuity throughout the years from preschool to grade 3, creating a predictable learning environment and familiar rules and routines that ease the transition from one grade to the next. Further, to ensure that consistency over time, CPC assigns a parent involvement team, site mentors, and school staff to monitor the curriculum's alignment and share instructional approaches and teaching practices across grades.
Research into CPC's outcomes
The positive effects of CPC are well documented in both the Chicago Longitudinal Study (Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds, Ou, & Temple, 2018; Reynolds, Temple, Ou, et al., 2011; Reynolds, Temple, White, et al. 2011) and studies of the initial implementation of the Midwest CPC expansion (Human Capital Research Collaborative, 2012; Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2016).
Chicago Longitudinal Study
In this study, nearly 1,000 three- and four-year-olds from low-income families who participated in 20 Chicago CPC programs in the mid-1980s were compared to 550 children of the same age who enrolled in the usual early childhood programs in five randomly selected schools. More than 90% of the original sample have remained in the study since that time.

Figure 1 shows the growth in reading achievement on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills from kindergarten entry (age 5) to 4th grade (age 10) for students who completed CPC's P-3 program, in comparison to students who completed only a CPC preschool and kindergarten program and in comparison to national norms. Although growth during kindergarten was similar between the two groups (both of which were at or above national norms), the P-3 group experienced greater growth between 1st and 4th grades. This translates to about a six-month gain above and beyond participation in the preschool program alone (Reynolds, Ou, & Temple, 2018; Reynolds & Temple, 1998).

Further, while the average performance of students in the CPC P-3 group did not quite keep pace with the national average, those students did close the 4th-grade gap between themselves and the national norm by about 75%, which is impressive considering their economic disadvantage (Reynolds, 2000).

Note also that because the Chicago Longitudinal Study has followed participants since 1986, it allows researchers to analyze its effects over long spans of time. For example, a recent study of the impact of CPC P-3 on college graduation at age 35 found that participants earned an associate's degree or above at significantly higher rates than non-participants (Reynolds, Ou, & Temple, 2018).

Additional benefits of the program become clear when we examine school mobility: Students who participated in CPC P-3 were significantly less likely to change schools during grades 4-8, and these lower levels of school mobility were associated with significant gains on other indicators of well-being, including academic achievement, high school graduation, and adult job skills (Reynolds, Temple, Ou, et al. 2011; Reynolds, Temple, White, et al., 2011).
Midwest CPC expansion
Impressive findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study helped lead to the expansion of CPC into Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other parts of Illinois in 2012-13. In turn, this has provided additional opportunities for research into the program's effects.

This second study has followed the progress of 2,364 participants in 26 CPC programs, as well as a comparison group of 1,212 students who enrolled in typical preschool programs that had no connection to later grades (Reynolds et al., 2014). The sample is more geographically and ethnically diverse than the Chicago study - 53% of participants are Black, 32% Hispanic, 7% White, and 5% Asian (compared to 93% Black and 7% Hispanic in Chicago) - and students' progress is being followed into the 3rd grade, with school achievement as the primary outcome being tracked.

Initial findings are similar to the first study, suggesting that CPC's program model - its six core elements and related services - translate to other contexts beyond Chicago. For example, while students in the Midwest group didn't show quite as dramatic improvements in school-readiness skills as did the Chicago cohort (they outpaced comparable students by the equivalent of four to five months of instruction, whereas the Chicago cohort outpaced peers by six to seven months) their gains were impressive all the same (Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2017; Reynolds, Richardson, et al., 2016).

One difference between the two cohorts is that CPC schools in the Midwest group chose to adopt a full-day preschool model to increase learning time, and this introduces another important research variable. (The Chicago program offers full-day preschool as well but not during the original CLS study.) To date, the data show that attending both part-day and full-day CPC programs are associated with significantly higher school-readiness skills (in comparison to attending other programs). Further, full-day enrollment is associated with significantly higher school-readiness skills (three- to four-month gain), higher average daily attendance (five percentage points), and lower rates of chronic absences (45% reduction).
Increasing and sustaining gains
A considerable body of evidence shows that the CPC model effectively bridges the divide between early education and school-age services (Reynolds, Richardson et al., 2016; Takanishi, 2016; Zigler & Styfco, 1993). Over five decades, it has yielded strong benefits in the areas of school readiness, achievement, and long-term well-being. Further, the model has been scaled up effectively in three states.

These findings can and should provide a foundation for increased investment in scale-up and expansion efforts, especially in communities and schools serving large proportions of at-risk children. The elements important to long-term and sustained effects - including low child-teacher ratios, intensive instruction, and family services - are present in CPC but appear to be less prevalent in state prekindergarten and other P-3 programs (Reynolds et al., 2016; Reynolds et al., 2017).

Two recent U.S. policy changes can help increase the scalability of CPC's P-3 model. First, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 requires states and school districts to submit school improvement plans that reflect evidence-based practices. These plans provide an opportunity to incorporate integrative P-3 models to address achievement gaps and sustain learning gains. Enhanced parent involvement and improved school climate, which also are ESSA requirements, can also bolster P-3 programs and practices. Second, the availability of funds for Pay for Success initiatives also provides an important opportunity for expansion.

At the state and district levels, the alignment of standards, assessments, and professional development for principals and staff are key to promoting continuity and integration of services across the continuum of early education. Many states, including Minnesota, Washington, New Jersey, and North Carolina, have accelerated P-3 and alignment across grades to enhance learning (Takanishi, 2016), but resources for professional development and capacity building will be critical to further improvement, and CPC's evidence-based framework can play an important role in this respect.

At the school and classroom levels, many structural and process elements have been shown to increase learning, including teacher background and education, positive teacher-child relationships, engaged instruction, school climate, and small classes (Manning et al., 2017). Professional development and support for teachers and staff also make positive contributions to learning. Family and community engagement, as well as principal leadership, are also essential to building capacity and support for a sustained continuum of learning across grades.

Nevertheless, three limitations in the early learning and P-3 field should be addressed to ensure continued progress. First, extensive longitudinal data are needed to test key questions and evaluate differing models, but few such ongoing studies are underway. Second, the evidence base has not been tested at scale. Although CPC has expanded the program beyond Chicago and to more heterogeneous populations, wide-scale implementation has not yet occurred. Future studies will be needed to examine the program's effectiveness for English language learners and other underrepresented groups. In addition, studies of the differential effects of program elements are needed to help tailor the model to new settings. Finally, scale-up and sustainability efforts need adequate levels of commitment and financial support to be effective. This requires organizational support from school districts and states and adequate public funding for qualified staff and resources (Cannon et al., 2017; Manning et al., 2017).

Key principles of school improvement developed in the 1970s have rarely been applied to early learning (Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2017; Zigler & Styfco, 1993). Among these are findings related to principal leadership, school climate, and engaged learning communities (Bryk et al., 2010; Rury, 2016; Takaniski & Kauerz, 2008). But all of these approaches are present in CPC's P-3 model. My hope is that the new opportunities under ESSA, as well as Pay for Success funding, will increase interest in this research-supported approach. And increased interest will allow for the collection of even more data on what programs for young children are the most likely to have long-term benefits.
References
Barton, P.E. & Coley, R.J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap II. Policy information report. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Belfield, C.R. & Levin, H.M. (Eds.). (2007). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Braveman, P. & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The social determinants of health: It's time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Reports, 129 (Suppl. 2), 19-31.

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J.Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112 (3), 579-620.

Cannon, J.S., Kilburn, M.R., Karoly, L.A., Mattox, T., Muchow, A.N., & Buenaventura, M. (2017). Investing early: Taking stock of outcomes and economic returns from early childhood programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Council of Economic Advisers. (2016). Inequality in early childhood and effective public policy interventions. In Economic Report of the President (pp. 153-206). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Human Capital Research Collaborative. (2012). Program requirement and guidelines, Midwest Expansion of the Child-Parent Center Program, Preschool to Third Grade. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Manning, M., Garvis, S., Fleming, C., & Wong, G.T.W. (2017, January). The relationship between teacher qualification and the quality of the early education and care environment. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration.

Manship, K., Farber, J. Smith, C., & Drummond, K. (2016). Case studies of schools implementing early elementary strategies: Preschool through third grade alignment and differentiated instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The nation's report card: 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute of Early Education Research. (2017). Preschool yearbook, 2016. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

O'Connell, M.E., Boat, T., & Warner K.E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ou, S-R. & Reynolds, A.J. (2006). School-age services: Programs that extend the benefits of early care and education services. In C.J. Groark, K.E. Mahaffie, R.B. McCall, & M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Evidence-based programs, practices, and policies for early childhood care and education (pp.114-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reynolds, A.J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children at risk. Developmental Psychology, 30, 787-804.

Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Reynolds, A.J., Hayakawa M, Candee, A.J., Englund, M.M. (2016). CPC P-3 program manual: Child-Parent Center Preschool-3rd Grade Program. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Reynolds, A.J., Hayakawa, M., Ou, S-R., Mondi, C.F., Englund, M.M., Candee, A.J., & Smerillo, N.E. (2017). Scaling and sustaining effective early childhood programs through school-family-community collaboration. Child Development, 88 (5), 1453-1465.

Reynolds, A.J., Magnuson, K., & Ou, S-R. (2010). PK-3 programs and practices: A review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1121-1131.

Reynolds, A.J., Ou, S-R., & Temple, J.A. (2018). A multi-component preschool to third grade preventive intervention and educational attainment at 35 years of age. JAMA Pediatrics, 172 (3).

Reynolds A.J., Richardson B.A., Hayakawa M., Lease, E.M., Warner-Richter, M., Englund, M.M., . . . Sullivan, M. (2014). Association of a full-day versus part-day preschool intervention with school readiness, attendance, and parent involvement. JAMA, 312 (20), 2126-2134.

Reynolds, A.J., Richardson, B.A., Hayakawa, M., Englund, M.M., & Ou, S-R. (2016). Multi-site expansion of an early childhood intervention and school readiness. Pediatrics, 138 (1).

Reynolds, A.J. & Temple, J.A. (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: Age 13 findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 69, 231-246.

Reynolds, A.J. & Temple, J.A. (2008). Cost-effective early childhood development programs from preschool through third grade. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 109-139.

Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S-R. Arteaga, I.A., & White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 333 (6040), 360-364.

Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., White, B.A., Ou, S-R., & Robertson, D.L. (2011). Age-26 cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Center education program. Child Development, 82, 782-804.

Rury, J.L. (2016). Education and social change: Contours in the history of American schooling (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Spoth, R., Rohrbach, L.A., Greenberg, M., Leaf, P., Brown, C.H. Fagan, A. . . . Society for Prevention Research Type 2 Translational Task Force Members and Contributing Authors. (2013). Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation research and systems. Prevention Science, 14 (4), 319-351.

Takanishi, R. (2016). First things first! Creating the new American primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Takanishi, R. & Kauerz, K. (2008). PK inclusion: Getting serious about a P-16 education system. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (7), 480-487.

Temple, J.A. & Reynolds, A.J. (2015). Using benefit-cost analysis to scale up early childhood programs through Pay for Success financing. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6 (3), 628-653.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Digest of education statistics, 2016. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Education and care: Early childhood programs and services for low-income families (Report No. GAO/HEHS-00-11). Washington, DC: Author.

Zellman, G.L. & Kilburn, M.R. (2015). Final report on the Hawai'i P-3 evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Zigler, E., Gilliam, W.S., & Jones, S.M. (Eds.). (2006). A vision for universal preschool education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Zigler, E. & Styfco, S.J. (1993). Head Start and beyond: A national plan for extended childhood intervention. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Zigler, E. & Trickett, P.K. (1978). IQ, social competence, and the evaluation of early childhood intervention programs. American Psychologist, 33, 789-798.

Citation: Reynolds, A.J. (2019). The power of P-3 school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (6), 27-33.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The power of P-3 school reform - kappanonline.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Child-Parent Center's Preschool to 3rd Grade Program is a model, supported by decades of research, for how schools can get students off to the right start. Early childhood education continues to be a high priority across the nation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World by Heidi Hayes Jacobs

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World by Heidi Hayes Jacobs

# data[].attributes.body
This book challenges teachers and administrators to think about the curriculum they are using to teach their students. Is it current? Or is it the same thing we've done since the 80's or 90's? She, like Sir Ken Robinson, (TED Talk linked below) believes that schools are not designed for children and are under a factory model from economic expansion around the 1920s. She states that even though change is uncomfortable, and we tend to gravitate to-- the way things have always been done or how they were when you were in school-- there are "real dangers in glorifying the good-old-days." (Page 15).

# data[].attributes.body
Sir Ken Robinson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this talk from RSA Animate, Sir Ken Robinson lays out the link between 3 troubling trends: rising drop-out rates, schools’ dwindling stake in the arts, and ADHD. An important, timely talk for parents and teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
TED Talk

Heidi mentions how she is against reform. She is calling for NEWforms.

She thinks everything is dated in education. She claims that standardized tests are the same now as they were in the 80's. She says assessment drives instruction, but why not have more performative assessments and interactive projects? She challenges teachers to upgrade their genres they teach and use technology in an innovative way to engage students and maximize learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TEDxNYED - Heidi Hayes Jacobs - 03/05/2011

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the many benefits that having good community/school/family connections bring to students. The guardians of the child support and communicate their child's need with the school faculty and teachers. Teachers and community groups and organizations in turn help the parents and give them the tools and strategies of what their children need to be successful. These bonds are essential for high quality relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research shows that when schools, parents, families, and communities work together, students:

This is true for students of all ages, all backgrounds, and across race and ethnicity. Furthermore, a variety of supports cutting across the spectrum of social, health, and academic needs may be necessary for school success. High quality schools have demonstrated track records connecting with community resources and families to improve student outcomes in all domains of development.

Although schools may interpret lack of involvement of immigrant or non-English speaking families as "not caring" about their children's education, this is most often NOT the case. Bilingual resources and staff, programs to help parents understand how to support their children's education, and parent liaisons who can connect the school and families to linguistically and culturally diverse community resources can be highly effective strategies for developing partnerships between schools, families, and the community.

Foundations for academic success begin in early childhood and are further developed during elementary school years. Conversely, patterns of failure and disengagement also begin early. For example, struggling readers are likely to continue to experience ongoing difficulties in secondary school if they are not supported early in their development. Continuity with family engagement strategies and partnerships with community programs from Pre-K/Elementary School to middle and high school can help support academic achievement throughout students' school tenure.

Adelman, H. & Taylor, L. (2007). Fostering School, Family, and Community Involvement. The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence & Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Available at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/publications/44%20guide%207%20fostering%20school%20family%20and%20community%20involvement.pdf

Epstein, J. L. et al. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Family Support. (n.d.). National Education Association. Available at https://www.nea.org/student-success/engaged-families-communities/family-support

Handbook on Family and Community Engagement. (2011). http://www.families-schools.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf

National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group: Recommendations for Federal Policy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project; 2009. Available at https://archive.globalfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/national-family-school-and-community-engagement-working-group-recommendations-for-federal-policy

National Network of Partnership Schools' (NNPS). (n.d.). Available at https://nnps.jhucsos.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Family-school-community partnerships are a shared responsibility and reciprocal process whereby schools and other community agencies and organizations engage families in meaningful and culturally appropriate ways, and families take initiative to actively support their children's development and learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Research shows that – at both the elementary and secondary level – when schools, parents, families, and communities work together, students:

earn higher grades;

attend school more regularly;

stay in school; and,

are more motivated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Family, School & Community Partnerships: Supporting Student Success

# data[].attributes.subject
Family, School & Community Partnerships: Supporting Student Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family, School & Community Partnerships: Supporting Student Success