100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Tailored to your instructions

Order Now!


This is course work. The only tool to be used is the uploaded article and there should be absolutely no outside sourcing, answers must be solely made from the article
Section 1.
? Summarize the results/findings of the article
? Critique/Evaluate the Results issues:
1. What are the major results/findings of the study?
2. How do these results answer the original research question(s)?
3. How confident are you with the findings?
Section 2.
? Summarize the Discussion/Conclusion of the article
? Critique/Evaluate the Implications of the Findings:
1. What conclusions did the authors reach?
2. Are these conclusion(s) appropriate?
3. What did the researchers report as the implications of the study?
4. In your opinion, what is the significance of the findings for your area of interest?
Vol.78. No. 4, pp. 471-490.
©20¡2 Councilor Exceptional Children.
High-Quality School-Based
Pre-K Can Boost Early Learning
for Children With Special Needs
Georgetown University
ABSTRACTr:: Tbis article assesses tbe eficts of Tuba, Oklaboma’s scbool-based prekindergarten program
on tbe scbool readiness ofcbildren witb special needs using a regression discontinuity design.
Participation in tbe pre-Kprogram was associated witb significant gains for cbildren witb special
needs in early literacy scores, but not in matb scores. Tbese gains were not statistically different
fiom tbose exbibited by tbeir classmates witbout special needs. Findings are interpreted as indicating
tbat bigb-quality state pre-K programs can serve as effective early intervention programs for
cbildren tuitb special needs.
hildren with special needs
have participated in public education
alongside their typically
developing peers for
more than 30 years. Passage of
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975 (EHA; now the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA) assured children
with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate
education. The legislation placed a priority on
serving children in the least restrictive environment,
fueling a nationwide expansion of inclusive
public school classrooms. More recently, the
explicit inclusion of students with special needs
in the accountability provisions of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 has reinforced the value
placed on inclusive education and added to both
the pressures and opportunities that confront
school systems as they attempt to provide these
children with appropriate and effective instruction
(Lordeman oí Jones, 2010; Wakemaii, Browder,
Meier, & McColl, 2007).
The 1986 reauthorization of EHA provided
strong financial incentives to states to provide
public education for all eligible 3- to 5-year-old
children who met criteria for developmental delay
by 1991-1992, signaling an important shift
towards preventive approaches to special education
(Farran, 2000; Krauss & Hauser-Cram,
1992). The hope was that early intervention
would result in lower special education costs over
the school years. During the ensuing decade, the
number of 3- to 5-year-olds receiving special education
services grew by almost 50% (U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2005),
reaching 706,242 children (5.82% of the
preschool population) in 2006 (Blackorby et al.,
2010). One third of these preschoolers received .
all of their special education in early childhood
Exceptional Children 4 7 1
environments with peers without disabilities, including
Head Start, child care, and pte-K settings
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
These trends have been accompanied by a
very active debate regarding the most appropriate
settings, activities, and focus and intensity of setvices
for advancing the development of this young
cohort (Administration for Children and Families,
1995; Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, & Wesley,
1998; Curalnick, 2001; Kochanek & Buka, 1999;
Wolery & Bailey, 2002). The growth in reliance
on inclusive early education settings, in particular,
has directed empirical attention to examining the
role that high-quality early education programs
can play in fostering school readiness for these
children (Carlson et al., 2009; Hebbeler et al.,
2007; Holahan & Costenbader, 2000). In fact,
early childhood education has long been viewed
as an important strategy for enhancing the later
academic success of young childten, especially
those who are vulnerable as a result of environmental
or biological circumstances (Shonkoff &
The growth in reliance on inclusive
early education settings, in particular,
has directed empirical attention to
examining the role that high-quality
early education programs can play
in fostering school readiness.
Meisels, 2000). Extensive reviews of the relevant
literature for children with disabilities have consistently
concluded that early education programs
can positively influence school participation and
outcomes for this population (Dunst, Snyder, &
Mankinen, 1989; Farran, 2000; Guralnick,
1998), although strong research designs are rare
and efforts to identify more and less effective approaches
to eatly intervention have remained elusive.
It is, nevertheless, well documented that
low-income children who participate in highquality
eatly education programs experience reductions
in special education placements once
they enter school (Campbell & Ramey, 1995;
Conyets, Reynolds, & Ou, 2003; Redden,
Ramey, Ramey, Fotness & Btezausek, 2003;
Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikatt, 1993).
However, the landscape of eatly childhood
education has undergone dramatic changes in the
last decade as a result of widespread expansions in
state pte-K education (Barnett et al., 2010).
These programs have added a prominent option
to the array of early intervention programs for
young children with special needs, yet their potential
to foster the eatly learning and development
of children with special needs remains an
unaddressed question. Batnett and colleagues
(2010) estimated that in the 2009-2010 school
yeat, 425,388 3- and 4-year-olds with special
needs wete in state pre-K classrooms (both
school-based and mixed delivery systems) with
typically developing peets—comprising approximately
5.1% of the total preschool-age population.
Of particular interest are the growing number
of school-based pre-K classrooms, in light of
prior evidence that effective “transition” or
kindergarten entry strategies significantly improve
the school success of children with special needs
and that childten are more likely to receive transition
services if they attend pre-K and kindergarten
in the same school (Carlson et al., 2009;
Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005). Wolery and
colleagues (Wolery, Holcombe, Brookfield et al.,
1993; Wolery, Holcombe, Venn et al., 1993) have
reported that close to three quarters of public
school pre-K programs include children with disabilities.
The pressing question is whether schoolbased
pre-K offers these children a head start
towards successful elementary school performance,
as it does for other children (Gormley,
Phillips, & Gayer, 2008; Gormley, Phillips, Newmark,
Welti, & Adelstein, 2011), ot whether it
constitutes an early start to learning disparities
that distinguish many of these childten ftom theit
typically developing classmates as they move
through school (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
This study was designed to address this question.
Specifically, we utilized a quasi-expetimental
design (regression discontinuity) to compare the
kindergarten achievement test scores of children
with individualized education programs (IEPs)
who had attended the school-based pre-K in
Tulsa, Oklahoma (as 4-year-olds) to the pre-K
achievement test scores of children with IEPs who
wete about to begin the ptogtam the following
4 7 2 Summer 2012
school year. We further compared the kindergarten
test scores of the pre-K enrollees with special
needs to those of their classmates without
IEPs. The Oklahoma pre-K program has received
national attention because, as one of a handful of
programs with universal eligibility, it reaches a
higher percentage of 4-year-olds (71%) than any
other pro[;ram in the nation (Barnett et al.,
2010). The pre-K program is not only universal
in its eligibility; it is fully inclusive in its approach
to special education. It also offers relatively highquality
educational opportunities to the enrolled
children compared to other pre-K programs
around the country (Phillips, Gormley, & Lowenstein,
2009), and thus offers an important opportunity
to examine whether high-quality,
school-based pre-K can serve as an effective early
intervention program in fostering school readiness
among children with special needs.
There are reasons to be both hopeful and
concerned about the role of school-based pre-K
programs in the education of children with special
needs. On the one hand, pre-K programs
share features with early intervention programs
that appear to be effective in supporting the development
of young children with special needs.
For example, the developmental benefits of highquality
early intervention services appear to derive,
in part, from their child-focus and reliance
on structured, carefully sequenced curricula (Graham
& Bryant, 1993; Guralnick, 1998; Odom &
Diamond, 1998; Shonkoff & Hauser-Cram,
1987), features that are central to school-based
pre-K education. In their comprehensive analysis
of services provided for young children with special
needs in Montgomery County, Maryland,
Markowitz, Hebbeler, Larson, Cooper, and Edmisten
(1991) found that children who received
services in classroom settings made larger gains on
the Battelle Developmental Inventory (Newborg,
2004) than did children who received services in
home-based or therapeutic settings—a result that
has been replicated (Schwartz, Carta, & Grant,
1996). Moreover, although research findings on
inclusion are mixed (see Guralnick, 1997; Odom
& Diamond, 1998), the weight of the evidence
seems to suggest that inclusion is beneficial for
children with mild disabilities, and may support
social development to an even greater extent than
academic skills (Bailey et al., 1998; Holahan &
Costenbader, 2000; Odom et al., 2004). Many
school-based pre-K programs (including Tulsa’s
program) rely heavily, if not exclusively, on inclusive
classrooms to serve young children with special
needs (Smith, Kleiner, Parsad, & Farris,
As a case in point, evidence on Head Start,
for which federal guidelines require inclusion of
children with special needs, has documented the
program’s effectiveness in promoting the development
of these children, albeit modestly (Conyers
et al., 2003; Gietzen & Vermeersch, 1980). Indeed,
recent evidence from the National Head
Start Impact Study revealed that children with
special needs who enrolled in Head Start as 3-
year-olds had made significant gains in math and
social-emotional development at the end of first
grade relative to their peers who did not attend
Head Start (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, 2010). Children without special
needs who attended the program did not realize
these gains. Whether these findings generalize to
school-based pre-K programs, however, remains
to be seen.
On the other hand, it is widely recognized
that inclusion does not guarantee quality services
(Buysse, Wesley, Bryant, & Gardner, 1999; Division
for Early Childhood, 2007), and that, although
necessary, high quality alone does not
appear to maximize the learning and development
of children with special needs in early education
settings (Guralnick, 2001; Odom et al., 2004). In
addition, teachers in early childhood inclusive
programs, including state pre-K programs, are
typically not trained in special education, nor are
special education professionals routinely available
to these programs (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey,
1996; McDonnell, Brownell, &C Wolery,
1997; Whitebook et al., 2004; Wolery & Wilbers,
1994). Finally, close family involvement and support,
along with deliberate orchestration of the
array of supports and services needed by children
with disabilities, are core tenets of service delivery
for these children (Bruder, 2005; Dunst &¿ Trivette,
1997; Guralnick, 1997, 1998, 2005a,
2005b). Yet school-based teachers and administrators
do not typically view these kinds of activities
as central responsibilities.
Exceptional Children 4 7 3
This study assessed the impact of Tulsa’s
high-quality, inclusive school-based pre-K program
on the school readiness of children with special
needs. We addressed two questions:
1. Does enrollment in Tulsa’s pre-K program
foster school readiness among children with
special needs? We hypothesized that children
with special needs who attended the pre-K
program would perform at significantly
higher levels on tests of preliteracy and premath
skills at kindergarten entry when compared
to children with special needs who had
not yet experienced the pre-K program.
2. Does the Tulsa pre-K program have comparable
impacts on children with and without
special needs? Given the documented quality
of the program, and its emphasis on structured
instruction and inclusion—factors that
have been linked to successful programs for
children with special needs—we hypothesized
that the effect of the program would be
comparable for children with and without
special needs.
Participants in this study were kindergarten and
pre-K children enrolled in the Tulsa, Oklahoma,
school-based pre-K program during the
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, respectively.
After obtaining institutional review board
approval, those who enrolled during the
2005—2006 school year (the treatment group, referred
to as alumni) were tested as they were entering
kindergarten. Those who enrolled during
2006—2007 (the comparison group, referred to as
entrants) were tested as they were entering pre-K.
The combined sample of 3,048 participants included
312 children with special needs (129 entrants
and 183 alumni) and 2,752 typically
developing children (1,367 entrants and 1,385
We included typically developing children in
the study sample to compare the effect of pre-K
participation for children with and without special
needs. The majority of both groups were in
full-day programs (88.4% and 83.1%, respectively)
and there were no differences between the
two groups on full day status. All pre-K classrooms
in Tulsa maintain a child: teacher ratio of
10:1 and a maximum classroom size of 20. Two
teachers are assigned to each classroom. All lead
teachers must have a bachelor’s degree and an
early childhood teaching certification. These
teachers are paid the same wage scale as K-12
teachers in the Tulsa Public School system. Assistant
teachers do not have any specific education
or training requirements.
Special needs status was determined using
administrative data records that identified children
who had an IEP in place. The administrative
data records also provided the date of the initial
IEP meeting, disability code(s), and the level of
classroom inclusion the child experienced (full
inclusion, inclusion with pull-out for special services,
and noninclusive). Children were considered
to have special needs for the purpose of this
study if the date of their initial IEP meeting occurred
prior to the end of their kindergarten year.
Selection of the end of kindergarten as our cut-off
was guided by feedback from the Tulsa Public
School system indicating that children who are
granted IEPs during kindergarten are not substantively
different (in terms of the presence or severity
of disability) from children who are given IEPs
during the pre-K year (A. McKenzie, personal
communication, September 8, 2008), perhaps because
of the similar school-based setting and personnel
of pre-K and kindergarten in Tulsa.
Nevertheless, in light of evidence that type, severity,
and complexity of special needs predict timing
of identification (Palfrey, Singer, Walker, & Butler,
1987) and that disabilities such as speech or
language impairments or autism tend to be identified
earlier than others (Guarino, Buddin,
Pham, & Cho, 2007), we examined whether the
children identified as having special needs before
or during pre-K differed from those identified in
kindergarten. The results revealed that children
who received their IEPs in kindergarten and those
who received them earlier did not differ in their
disability code(s) or achievement test scores, and
sensitivity checks confirmed that our substantive
results do not differ when children who received
IEPs in kindergarten are removed from the
474 Summer 2012
A total of 312 childten from the larger Tulsa
Public Schools (TPS) pre-K sample had been designated
special needs (had IEPs in place) by the
end of kindergarten. Of those children, 250 children
or 80% were in full-inclusion pre-K classrooms,
46 children or 14.5% were in full
inclusion classrooms with periodic removal for
special services (e.g. speech therapy sessions), and
the remaining 16 children or 5.5% were in other,
noninclusive, pre-K classroom settings. Only children
in full inclusion and full inclusion with removal
for special services classrooms—124
entrants and 172 alumni, for a total sample of
296 children—were included in the analyses.
Children in other classroom settings were
dropped to ensure that estimates reflected the effects
of the “typical pre-K experience” on children
with special needs and could be compared to the
experience of typically developing children in the
program. There were no major differences in the
demographic characteristics or disability codes of
the 16 children who were dropped from the sample
and those who remained.
Our final sample (A’^ = 296) consisted of 94
children (31.8%) whose special needs were identified
prior to enteting the pre-K program, 147
children (42.9%) who were identified during pre-
K, and 55 children (18.6%) who were identified
during kindergarten. The majority of the children
in this sample (289 or 97.5%) were primarily categorized
as having a developmental delay. In
Tulsa, this category is utilized as a catch-all for
young children with mild to moderate needs who
are not achieving at the level of their peers, but
for whom future developmental status is uncertain
(A. McKenzie, personal communication,
September 8, 2008). Of the children who were
categorized as having a developmental delay, 121
were assigned no other disability code. The majority
of these children (168) were, however, assigned
a secondary disability code as follows: 156
with speech impairments, 14 with learning disabilities,
one with autism, one with other health
impairments, and one with hearing impairments.
The remaining seven children were not coded as
experiencing developmental delays—but were categorized
as having speech impairments only (six)
or speech impairments and mental retardation
(one). Thus, the sample of children with special
needs in this study, although heterogeneous, consisted
predominantly of those with mild and
moderate delays who may or may not continue to
receive services in elementary school and beyond.
Of the 296 children with special needs included
in the sample, 68.6% were male, 38.5%
were white, 40.5% were black, 8.9% were Hispanic,
and 11.8% were Native American. In
terms of mother’s education, 16.8% of mothers of
children with special needs had not completed
high school, 24.9% had graduated high school,
47.4% had completed an associate’s degree or attended
some college, and 11.0% had completed a
bachelor’s degree or higher. Finally, 64.5% of children
with special needs qualified for free lunch,
10.5% qualified for reduced-price lunch, and
23% paid full-price lunch; 5.1% were English
language learners; 56.1% lived with their biological
father; and 50.5% had internet access in the
The sample of children with special
needs in this study, although heterogeneous,
consisted predominantly of those with
mild and moderate delays who may or
may not continue to receive services
in elementary school and beyond.
The 2,752 typically developing children in
this study had not been identified as developmentally
delayed or otherwise in need of special services
(IEP status) by the end of their kindergarten
year. Of the typically developing children (both
entrants and alumni), 49.6% were male, 32.8%
were White, 34.2% were Black, 22.2% were Hispanic,
9.4% were Native American, and the remaining
were Asian. In addition, 19.1% of these
children’s mothers had not completed high
school, 27.4% had graduated high school, 39.7%
had completed an associate’s degree or attended
some college, and 13.9% had completed a bachelor’s
degree or higher. Finally, 63.6% of typically
developing children qualified for free lunch,
12.4% qualified for reduced-price lunch, and
24% paid full-price lunch; 15.5% were English
language learners; 62.5% lived with their biological
father; and 51.9% had Internet access in the
Exceptional Children
The data used in this study are from student tests
and parent surveys administered in August 2006
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as well as administrative data
records from the TPS system accessed in June
2008. Children were tested on their pre-academic
skills using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement III (WJ III; Woodcock, McCrew, &
Mather, 2001), a nationally normed, widely used
assessment tool that has been used extensively
with racially and socioeconomically mixed samples,
and with children with special needs (Chase-
Lansdale et al., 2003; Henry, Cordon, St
Rickman, 2006; Puma et al., 2005). Three subtests
of the WJ III were selected to reflect age-appropriate
preacademic skills: Letter-Word
Identification, Spelling, and Applied Problems.
The Letter-Word Identification subtest measures
prereading and reading skills. It requires children
to identify letters that appear in large type and to
pronounce words correctly (the child is not required
to know the meaning of any particular
word). The Spelling subtest measures prewriting
and spelling skills. It measures skills such as drawing
lines and tracing letters and requires the child
to produce uppercase and lowercase letters and to
speir simple words correctly. The Applied Problems
subtest measures early math reasoning and
problem-solving abilities. It requires the child to
analyze and solve math problems, performing relatively
simple calculations.
These subtests are appropriate for relatively
young children, including preschoolers (Mather
& Woodcock, 2001), and have been used in other
studies with this age group (Chase-Lansdale et al.,
2003; Henry et al., 2006; Puma et al., 2005).
Barbara Wendling, a nationally recognized expert
on the WJ III and a highly experienced trainer,
trained teachers to administer the three tests at
one of two training sessions held in Tulsa in late
August 2006. Teachers administered the WJ III
subtests during the first week of school (designated
as a testing week for TPS, prior to the start
of classes). Teachers administered all tests in English
unless the child being tested was designated
a bilingual student, in which case the child was
also given a Spanish version of the test, the
Batería III Woodcock-Mufioz (Woodcock,
Muñoz-Sandoval, McGrew, & Mather, 2005).
Only the English-language test scores are analyzed
in this article.
We collected data on individual child and
parent characteristics via surveys that were completed
by the parents while their child was being
tested. Parents were asked the child’s race and
gender, the mother’s highest level of education, if
the father lived at home with the child, and
whether the family had Internet access in the
home. We measured family socioeconomic status
via an income proxy. Schools reported the lunch
status of all children, which provided three levels
(i.e., free lunch, reduced-price lunch, full-price
lunch). Standard cut-offs for lunch status are determined
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
National School Lunch Program and correspond
to 130% of the federal poverty level (FPL) for free
lunch, 185% of the FPL for reduced-price lunch,
and above 185% of the FPL for full-price lunch.
Selection bias is the key difficulty in assessing the
effects of any voluntary program, regardless of the
poptilation it serves. Children whose parents enroll
them in a voluntary pre-K program, for example,
may differ in important ways from
children whose parents do not enroll them. To the
extent that these differences are measurable, their
influence can be controlled. However, if some of
these differences (e.g., children’s intelligence or
motivation and parental attitudes) are not measured,
then any direct group comparison will be
biased, as will the estimated effects of participation
in the program. In effect, differences between
enrolled and not-enrolled children that are ascribed
to the pre-K program may actually be partially
attributable to these types of preexisting
sample differences.
Regression-Discontinuity Design. To reduce selection
bias, we utilized a regression discontinuity
(RD) design to estimate the direct impact of pre-
K participation on children with special needs
and typically developing children, respectively,
and to determine whether a differential effect of
participation existed for the two subsamples. This
approach builds on previous work with the TPS
data (Gormley et al., 2008; Cormley & Cayer,
2005; Cormley, Cayer, Phillips, & Dawson
2005), others’ work evaluating pre-K for typically
4 7 6 Summer 2012
F I G U R E 1
Hypothetical Illustration of Regression Discontinuity Design
Cut-off Age
Control (Entrants)
Counterfactual (Entrants)
Treatment (Alumni)
developing childten (Barnett, Lamy, & Jung,
2005), and evaluations of language/reading interventions
for developmentally at-risk children
(Tuckwiller, Pullen, & Coyne, 2010; Vaughn,
Wanzek, Murray, Scammacca, & Linan, 2009).
RD substantially reduced selection bias by
creating a treatment group that consisted of children
who attended the pre-K program in the
2005—2006 school year and a comparison group
that consisted of children who were about to
begin the pre-K ptogtam at the beginning of the
2006-2007 school yeat. TPS enfotces a strict cutofïdate
fot pre-K eligibility (Septembet 1) that is
identical to the cut-off date fot kindergarten eligibility.
This means that students who were born on
or before September 1, 2001, wete eligible to participate
in the pte-K ptogram for the 2005-2006
school yeat but students who wete born after that
date wete not eligible to participate until the following
yeat. This strict birthday qualification creates
a situation where assignment into the pre-K
treatment group is based solely on the cut-off
vatiable, in this case age, which is untelated to the
selection process. The associated inability of teseatchers
or patents to manipulate a given child’s
assignment into the treatment ot compatison
group increases confidence that treatment estimates
are unbiased (Imbens & Lemieux, 2008;
Lee ôiLemieux, 2010).
Figure 1 provides a hypothetical illusttation
of this design. The dotted line to the right of the
cut-off date shows hypothetical test scores of the
treatment group and the bold solid line to the
left of the cut-off date shows hypothetical test
scores of the comparison gtoup. The key challenge
in estimating the effect of TPS pte-K is to
estimate the countetfactual or test-scote outcomes
fot treated children had they not been
treated. The solid line to the right of the cut-off
date depicts the countetfactual. The regression
discontinuity design assumes that the countetfactual
is continuous at the cut-off date, so any
jump in estimated test scores for the treated children
relative to the countetfactual can be
Exceptional Children 477
Demographic Characteristics of Pre-K Students With Special Needs: Alumni Versus Rntrants
Special needs ID before pre-K
Special needs ID during pre-K
Special needs ID during kindergarten
Native American
Lunch status
Maternal education
No high school diploma
High school diploma/CED
Some college/associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree or higher
Resident father status
Internet access in the home
*/> < 0.10. *> < 0.05. ***/> < 0.01. attributed to their participation in the pre-K program. The underlying assumption that supports using this analytic design to assess the impact of the pre-K program is that a child who just made the pre-K entrance cut-off date and a child who just missed the cut-off date should have similar characteristics (both measurable and immeasurable), except that one child has already received the treatment (Tulsa pre-K) and the other has not. We tested this assumption for measurable characteristics using the entire sample of children with special needs (reflected in a 12-month winclow in age around the cut-off date). As Table 1 indicates, there were no statistically significant differences between the children who had experienced pre-K and were entering kindergarten (the treatment group) and the children who were just entering pre-K (the comparison group) for gender, ethnicity, resident father status, Internet access, or free lunch status. There were, however, differences between the two groups for mother’s education level. Specifically, the comparison group had more highly educated mothers. Inadequate sample size prevented tests to confirm whether imbalances diminish and the treatment effect remains for the children with special needs as the window (age in months) around the cut-off variable narrows. However, narrowing the window around the cut-ofFdate for the larger sample of typically developing children in this study and the entire sample of children (with and without special needs) who attended the pre-K program (Gormley & Gayer, 2005; Gormley et al., 2005; Gormley, 2011) confirmed that for these populations, imbalances diminished and test score differences remained. We are confident that the imbalances in the sample of children with special needs do not reflect a manipulation of children’s assignment into the treatment or comparison group. Rather, they reflect a policy-induced loss of children with special needs whose mothers were poorly educated from the comparison group. The implications of 4 7 8 Summer 2012 these imbalances for the interpretation of the magnitude of pre-K program impacts for children with special needs are discussed later in this article. However, these imbalances do not affect the validity of utilizing RD in this study because they are not correlated with the cut-off date. Analytic Approach. The primary goal of this study was to estimate the effect of pre-K program participation for children with special needs. To do this, we ran a series of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions on the subsample of children with special needs, including both entrants to (A^ = 124) and alumni of {N = 172) the pre-K program. The initial model utilized a dichotomous variable (treatment) which captured whether the student was born on or before September 1, 2001, and represents treatment status equal to 1 for students who participated in the pre-K program in 2005-2006 and equal to zero for students who participated in the Tulsa pre-K program in 2006-2007, child’s age (qualify) measured as the difference in days between the student’s date of birth and September 1, 2001, and an interaction term for child’s age by treatment. Covariates added to this model included race, gender, free lunch eligibility, maternal education, whether the child lived with his or her biological father, and whether the child had Internet access at home. Although, theoretically, the covariates should be uncorrelated with the treatment variable and are therefore unnecessary inclusions in the model if the underlying assumptions of the regression discontinuity design hold, we included them here to increase the precision of the estimated treatment effect. After estimating the effect of pre-K participation on the preacademic skills of children with special needs, we compared the impact of participation on children with special needs to that of their typically developing peers. To accomplish this, we ran a similar series of OLS regressions on the combined sample of special needs and typically developing children (A’^= 3,048). This series of regressions utilized a fully interacted model, which included students’ special needs status; an interaction variable capturing the relative effect of treatment for students with special needs; and interaction terms for all of the covariates with special needs status. We implemented multiple imputation as a strategy to address the prevalence of missing data, particularly with regards to demographic variables that relied on parental survey report (Rubin, 1996), using the ice program in Stata (version 10.0) to create five imputed data sets that were then combined to produce estimates of the missing data values (Royston, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). In this study, missing values for gender, ethnicity, maternal education level (passively imputed), resident father status, and Internet access, were imputed. Missing values for WJ III test scores (outcome variables) and free lunch status were not imputed. Children with missing values fot either the outcome variable or for free lunch eligibility were dropped from the analyses. In each of the models, approximately half of the children who were dropped were missing WJ III test scores; the majority of these children failed to show up to school on the day they were being tested. Tests of the sensitivity of the estimates to different methods of dealing with missing data indicated that findings were robust. RESULTS IMPACT OF PRE-K FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Table 2 presents tests of the hypothesis that children with identified special needs benefited from their enrollment in the pre-K program. Of the 296 entrants and alumni with special needs, 252 were included in the analysis for the WJ III Letter- Word Identification subtest, 243 were included in the analysis for the Spelling subtest, and 250 were included in the analysis for the Applied Problems subtest due to missing values (for test scores or free lunch eligibility). We calculated effect sizes by dividing the estimated treatment effect by the standard deviation of the comparison group. Children with special needs who had participated in the pre-K program had significantly higher Letter-Word Identification raw test scores {b = 3.433, SE = 1.109, p < 0.001) and Spelling raw test scores (b = 3.049, SE = 0.728, p < 0.001) than children who had selected into the program but had not yet experienced it, after controlling for age and other demographic variables. These Exceptional Children TABLE 2 Effect of Pre-K on Raw Test Scores: Children Witb Special Needs Variable Treatment Age in days Age in days X treatment Female Black Hispanic Native American Asian Reduced-price lunch Free lunch Maternal education No high school diploma Some college/ associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree or higher Lives with father Internet access in home Constant Number of observations Letter-Word Identification b 3.433*** 0.004 0.002 0.329 -1.468** 0.272 0.062 8.599*** -0.446 -0.505 -0.528 1.263* 3.338* 0.357 1.445** 3.333*** SE 1.109 0.003 0.005 0.632 0.607 1.112 0.765 0.999 1.033 0.844 0.916 0.737 1.859 0.709 0.667 1.233 252 Spelling b 3.049*** 0.004 -0.002 1.105*** -0.781 0.105 -0.390 1.160** -0.187*** -0.142 -0.446 0.734 1.016 0.728* 0.232 3.375*** 243 SE 0.728 0.002 0.004 0.413 0.505 0.678 0.602 0.586 0.781 0.577 0.580 0.857 0.857 0.412 0.514 0.839 Applied Problems b 1.295 0.006 0.009* 1.006 -2.451*** -2.373* -1.283 4.333*** -0.328 -0.704 1.594 2.067** 2.132 0.261 1.417* 6.428*** SE 1.347 0.004 0.006 0.739 0.828 1.366 1.106 1.223 1.195 0.967 1.118 0.828 1.508 0.861 0.837 1.725 250 */> < 0.10. **/> < 0.05. ***/> < 0.01. results indicate test score impacts of 3.433 points (a 1.093 effect size) for the Letter-Word scores and test score impacts of 3.049 points (a 1.155 effect size) for the Spelling scores. There were no differences between the two groups on the Applied Problems raw test scores (h = 1.295, SE = 1.547, p > 0.10). Figures 2 and 3 provide graphical
depictions (scatterplots) of the RD findings.
In both figures, the jump in test scores at the cutoff
date represents the impact of the pre-K program
on test scores, which we have estimated
Table 3 presents a direct comparison of the effect
of pre-K program participation on typically developing
children and children with special needs for
all three WJ III subtests (see Table 4 for fUll regression
results). Due to missing values fot the
outcome variables or free lunch eligibility, 2,746
of the complete sample of entrants and alumni (A’^
= 3,048) were included in the analysis for the Letter-
Word Identification subtest, 2,641 were included
in the analysis for the Spelling subtest, and
2,724 were included in the analysis for the Applied
Problems subtest. There were no significant
differences in the effect of program participation
on the test scores of children with and without
special needs for any of the subtests.
Figure 4 illustrates the test-score gains associated
with pre-K participation for children with
special needs and typically developing children,
converted into age equivalence scores in months.
It is important to note that for WJ III the relationship
of test-score points to months gained is
non-linear. Children with special needs, who
48O Summer 2012
F I G U R E 2
Scatterplot of Regression Discontinuity for Letter-Word Identification Subtest
t Score
tion Subtes
ttér-word Identifica
0 5
• •

-• -365
Age in

days from 05

1 180
-06 pre-k cutoff date
Test Score
Fitted Line for Entrants
Fitted Line for Alumni

Note. Each data point represents the average test score for groups of children born within a 10-day window.
Scatterplot of Regression Discontinuity for Spelling Subtest
CO o .
• S
.E ID –
o –

• • (
• A • *
* •
• 1
A A #
• • •
H• i • • •• •
-180 0 180
Age in days from 05-06 pre-k cutoff birthday
• Test Score
Fitted Line for Entrants
Fitted Line for Alumni
Note. Each data point represents the average test score for groups of children horn within a 10-day window.
Exceptional Children 4 8 1
Comparison of the Effect of Pre-K on Raw Test Scores of Typically Developing Children and
Children Witb Special Needs
Letter-Word Identification
Applied Problems
Typically Developing
Special Needs
(Treatment by Special
Needs Status)
b SE
-0.303 1.137
0.928 0.758
-0.705 1.365
*p < 0.10. **/> < 0.05. ***p < 0.01. scored lower than childten without special needs on all three subtests ptior to pre-K participation, demonsttated latget age equivalence gains despite comparable gains in terms of raw test score points for the two gtoups. D I S C U S S I O N This study teptesents the fitst effort to look at the effects of school-based pte-K education on the school readiness of childten with special needs. It addressed the question of whether school-based pte-K offers young children with special needs, operationalized by IEPs, a head start towatds successful elementary school performance or whether it fails to advance the eatly leatning of these childten. The tesults are cause for optimism. Schoolbased pre-K education, as experienced in Tulsa, supported the eatly leatning of children with special needs, as hypothesized. Indeed, the impact of F I G U R E 4 Tulsa Pre-K Program Impacts in Monthly Equivalents for Typically Developing Children and Cbildren With Special Needs 70 • Equîva < il” 1 £ 30 • < 0.05. ***p < 0.01. Exceptional Children pte-K on the achievement test scores of the children with IEPs was not statistically different from the impact of pre-K on the scores of their typically developing classmates. The program appears to have its largest effects on the Letter-Word Identification subtest, which assesses prereading abilities, and the Spelling subtest, which assesses prewriting skills, for children with special needs. The Applied Problems subtest of early math reasoning and problem-solving abilities did not exhibit significant differences between the children with special needs who had and had not yet attended the pre- K program. This pattern of results also characterized the complete sample of children—those with and without special needs—who attended the Tulsa pre-K program during the 2005-2006 school year, although the Applied Problems subtest did produce significant group differences in this larger sample (Gormley et al., 2008). The relatively greater impact of the program on literacy than on numeracy skills may reflect the differential amount of classroom time that the Tulsa pre-K teachers devoted to these two domains of school readiness. To gain a better understanding of ptactices inside the school-based pre-K programs, we deployed highly trained observers to monitor the morning sessions of all classrooms (Phillips et al., 2009). On average, the pre-K teachers allocated 33% of their morning classroom time to prelitetacy and writing activities, whereas they allocated only 17% of their time to math activities. In addition, emerging evidence is revealing that early math skills, perhaps more so than early literacy skills, are affected by young children’s executive function capacities, including their working memory and attention (Espy et al., 2004; Li-Grining, Raver, & Smith- Donald, 2010). These capacities pose special challenges to children with disabilities (Gathetcole, AUoway, Willis, & Adams, 2006; Liebman &C Goodman, 1995), which may tender typical premath instruction less effective than preliteracy instruction in fostering kindergarten readiness for children with special needs. It may also be the case that young children with special needs require more individualized math instruction than their peers without special needs, and than was provided in Tulsa pre-K classrooms. Not only did pre-K attendance bolster the school readiness of the children with special needs, but its impacts were comparable to those for the typically developing children. The effect sizes for the children with special needs were 1.093 and 1.155 for the Letter-Word Identification and Spelling tests, respectively. These effect sizes exceed those reported for other state-funded pre-K programs, which range from .17 to .68 (Wong, Cook, Barnett, & Jung, 2008), with data reported for complete samples that likely include some children with special needs but consist predominantly of typically developing children. Moreover, although the children with special needs scored lower on each of the WJ III subtests than the children without special needs both prior to and after attending pre-K, as expected, their test gains expressed in monthly equivalents were quite large for both the Lettet-Wotd Identification and Spelling subtests. Indeed, as compated to the children with special needs who had not yet experienced pre-K, those with pre-K experience gained over 9 months on the Letter-Word test and close to 11 months on the Spelling test. Although gains on the Applied Problems subtest were not significant for the children with special needs, it is notable that their scores on this test of pre-math skills placed them over 3 months ahead of children with special needs who had not yet attended the program. Nevertheless, in light of the importance of early mathematics concepts for children’s continued academic success (Duncan et al., 2007), effotts to improve mathematics instruction within the context of inclusive programs that serve children with special needs are critical. There is reason to believe that these results may actually represent a conservative estimate of the impact of pre-K on the school readiness of children with special needs. The comparison group of children with special needs, who were just entering the pre-K program, as compared to the treatment children, had more highly educated mothers. These differences in maternal education appear to be the direct result of an administrative initiative within TPS to funnel all children with special needs, regardless of socioeconomic status, into the local Head Start program and away from the public pre-K program (A. McKenzie, personal communication, September 8, 2008). Highly educated mothers may have resisted the placement 4 8 4 Summer 2012 of their children with special needs into Head Start, thus creating the observed higher maternal education level, on average, in the TPS pre-K comparison group than the treatment group and resulting in a conservative estimate of the treatment efFect. Indeed, analyses designed to test this hypothesis (available from authors upon request) confirmed that impacts presented here are conservative. Although the current study did not examine the specific features of the Tulsa pre-K program that might account for its positive impacts on the early learning of children with special needs, it is noteworthy that, in prior analyses, the TPS pre-K classrooms scored higher on classroom quality on a range of indicators as compated to a multistate sample of school-based pre-K programs (Phillips et al., 2009). Quality of early educational environments clearly matters for children with special needs, as it does for all children (Conyers et al., 2003). More specifically, these indicators included observational assessments of time management, reliance on instructional techniques that maximize students’ engagement and fostet higher order thinking skills, and providing feedback that expands understanding. These classroom features have been associated with children’s early learning in previous studies (Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008). Tulsa pre-K teachers also devoted more classroom time, relative to pre-K teachers in other states, to literacy and math instruction. In light of evidence within the special education literature that children with special needs benefit from well-organized, structured, and sequenced instruction, as well as from intensive exposure to learning materials (Guralnick, 1998; Hill, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2003), these features of Tulsa pre-K are strong candidates for future efforts to identify the predictors of the gains demonstrated by the childten with special needs in these classrooms. Tulsa’s almost exclusive reliance on inclusion, combined with the relatively high quality of instruction provided, may also contribute to the promising results (Bailey et al, 1998; Holahan & Costenbader, 2000; Odom et al., in press), although, we were not able to compare inclusive and noninclusive classrooms in this study. A relatively new literature examining peer effects in pre-K classrooms may also be pertinent in the context of Tulsa’s reliance on inclusive classrooms. Henry and .Rickman (2007) found that the ability levels of children’s peers within preschool classrooms were directly related to the variation in children’s cognitive, prereading, and expressive language skills at kindergarten entry. Although peer effects have not been examined fot children with special needs, it is plausible that they may operate in a similar fashion within integrated classrooms. Full-day preschool attendance generates higher rates of developmental progress for children with special needs than does half-day attendance (Holahan & Costenbader, 2000); the fact that close to 90% of the children with special needs in the Tulsa pre-K program attended for a full day may also play a role in the gains made by these children. Finally, in addition to the evidence of high-quality instruction described above, it is notable that every pre-K teacher in the Tulsa pre- K program had a bachelor’s degree, was earlychildhood certified (although not necessarily certified in special education), and was paid on the wage scale for public school teachers, suggesting a relatively well-educated early childhood teacher workforce that focused classroom time on instruction. Although these factors may account for the strong progress towards school readiness made by the children with special needs who attended the Tulsa pre-K program, they also limit the generalizability of the findings. The findings are also specific to pre-K that is both universal and inclusive. Other limitations concern an inability to examine variation in outcomes associated with specific subgroups within the population of children with special needs defined either by disability code or severity of disability, or by variation in family characteristics or environmental risk, due to both lack of information and the small sample size. Indeed, our findings should be viewed as generalizable only to young children with relatively mild to moderate disabilities. The enormous heterogeneity in both biological and environmental causes of disability, and its contribution to variability in response to early intervention, is an extremely pressing issue that this work cannot inform (Guralnick, 2005a). Unfortunately, we lacked information on other services received by the children in this Exceptional Children 4 8 S study, which may have contributed to their progress beyond the benefits of the pre-K program, as well as on the family circumstances of the children in our study. The developmental systems approach (Guralnick, 2005b, 2011) highlights the important contribution of the family in fostering the development of children with special needs. However, absent family-level data, we are unable to ascertain how family dynamics in either the comparison or treatment group tnay have contributed to our results. Yet the current results document that the TPS pre-K program is efficacious in preparing young children with a range of mild to moderate special needs for the demands of elementary school. In light of the rapid growth in special education enrollments within state pre-K programs, many of which rely at least in part on schoolbased classrooms, these are very promising results. Concerns that the needs of these children will be neglected in the context of pre-K programs that are not designed specifically with children with special needs in mind, or that state pre-K may even contribute to disparities in learning that emerge during the school years for these children, would appear to be largely unfounded when the quality of early education is high and when pre-K education is tightly integrated into the elementary education system. The challenge for the future is one of ensuring that this is not a unique pattern of results. This entails deciphering the “active ingredients” of the Tulsa program for children with special needs and taking the necessary steps to translate this information into programs across the nation that meet the needs of young children with early delays and disabilities. R E F E R E N C E S Administration for Children and Families. (1995). Passages to inclusion: Creating systems of care for all children. Monograph for state, territorial and tribal child care administrators. Washington, DC: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406819) Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., &c Wesley, P. W. (1998). Inclusion in the context of competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27-47. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/S0885-2006(99)80024-6 Barnett, W. S., Epstein, D. J., Cardan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., Ackerman, D. J., & Friedman, A. H. (2010). The state of preschool 2010. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research. Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C, & Jung, K. (2005). The effects of state prekindergarten programs on young children’s school readiness in five states. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research. Blackorhy, J., Schiller, E., Mallik, S., Hebbeler, K., Huang, T., Javits, H., . . . Williamson, C. (2010). Patterns in the identification of and outcomes for children and youth with disabilities (NCEE 2010-4005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Bruder, M. B. (2005). Service coordination and integration in a developmental systems approach to early intervention. In G. J. Guralnick (Ed.), A developmental systems approach to early intervention: National and international perspectives (pp. 29-58). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Buysse, V., Wesley, P W., Bryant, D., 6£ Gardner, D. (1999). Quality of early childhood programs in inclusive and noninclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 65, 301-314. Buysse, V., Wesley, P W, Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. (1996). Assessing the comfort zone of childcare teachers in serving young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 209-210. http://dx.doi.org /10.1177/105381519602000301 Campbell, FA., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at midlife adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743-772. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/000283120 32004743 Carlson, E., Daley, T., Bitterman, A., Heinzen, H., Keller, B., Markowitz, J., & Riley, J. (2009). Early school transitions and the social behavior of children with disabilities: Selected findings from the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC: National Genter for Special Education Research. Ghase-Lansdale, L., MofFitt, R., Lohman, B., Cherlin, A., Goley, R., Pittman, L., . . . Vbtruba-Drzal (2003). Mothers’ transitions from welfare to work and the well heing of preschoolers and adolescents. Science, 299, 1548-1552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science .1076921 Gonyers, L. M., Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S-R. (2003). The effect of early childhood intervention and suhse- 4 8 6 Summer 2012 quent special education services: Eindings from the Chicago Parent-Child Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 75-95. http://dx.doi.org /10.3102/01623737025001075 Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: Recommendations for curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Missoula, MT: Author Duncan, C. J. Dowsett, C. J. Claessens, A. Magnuson, K. Huston, A. C, Klebanov, P., . . . Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). School teadiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0012-l649.43.6.l428 Dunst, C. J., Snyder, S. W, & Mankinen, M. (1989). Efficacy of early intervention. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, ÔC G. H. Walbet (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice—Low incidence conditions (pp. 259-294). New York, NY: Pergamon. Dunst, C. J., &Trivette, C. M. (1997). Early intervention with young at-risk children and their families. In R. Ammerman & M. Hetsen (Eds.), Handbook of prevention and treatment with children and adolescents: Intervention in the real world (pp. 157—180). New York, NY: Wiley. Espy, K., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. E, Stalets, M., Hamby, A., & Stern, T. E. (2004). The conttibution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 465-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/sl5326942d n2601_6 Earran, D. (2000). Another decade of intervention for children who are low-income and disabled: What do we know now? In J. Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P, Willis, C, & Adams, A. (2006). Working memory in children with reading áisdihW’iúes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265-281. http://dx.doi.Org/10.10l6/j.jecp.200 5.08.003 Gietzen, D., & Vetmeersch, J. A. (1980). Health status and school achievement of children from Head Start and free school lunch programs. Public Health Report, 95, 362-368. Gormley, W. (2011, January). Regression discontinuity: A view from Tulsa. Presentation at the Workshop on Regression Discontinuity Methods in Prekindergarten Evaluations, Cambridge, MA. Gormley, W, & Gayer, T. (2005). Promoting school readiness in Oklahoma: An Evaluation of Tulsa’s pre-K . Journal of Human Resources, 40, 533—558. Gormley, W, Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0012-l649.4l.6.872 Gormley, W., Phillips, D., &c Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school teadiness. Science, 320, 1723-1724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science .1156019 Gormley, W, Phillips, D., Newmatk, K., Welti, K., & Adelstein, S. (2011). Social-emotional effects of eatly childhood education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82, 2095-2109. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.llll/j. 1467-8624.2011.01648.x Graham, M. A., &C Btyant, D. M. (1993). Characteristics of quality, effective service delivery systems for children with special needs. In D. M. Btyant & M. A. Graham (Eds.), Implementing early intervention: From research to effective practice (pp. 233-252). New York, NY: Guilfotd. Guarino, C, Buddin, R., Pham, C, & Cho, M. (2007). Working paper: Characteristics associated with the early identification of children with special needs in California (WR-439-EDU). Pittsburgh, PA: RAND Education. Guralnick, M. J. (1997). Second-generation research in the field of early intervention. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 3—23). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Guralnick, M. J. (1998). Effectiveness of early intervention for vulnerable children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 1.02, 319-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017 (1998)102<0319_EOEIEV>2.0.CO;2
Guralnick, M. J. (2001). Social competence with peers
and early childhood inclusion. In M. J. Guralnick
(Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Eocus on change (pp.
3-35). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Guralnick, M.J. (2005a). Early intervention for children
with intellectual disabilities: Current knowledge
and futute prospects. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 18, 313-324. http://dx.doi.org
Guralnick, M.J. (Ed.). (2005b). A developmental systems
approach to early intervention: National and international
perspectives. Baltimore, MD: Btookes.
Guralnick, M.J. (2011). Why early intervention works:
A systems perspective. Infants and Young Children, 24,
6-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e31820
Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., Bailey, D., Scarborough, A.,
Mallik, S., Simeonsson, . . . Nelson, L. (2007). Early
Exceptional Children 4 8 7
intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families: Participants, services and outcomes, Einal
report of the National Early Intervention Longitudinal
Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Henry, C, Cordon, C. S., & Rickman, D. K. (2006).
Early education policy alternatives: Comparing quality
and outcomes of Head Start and state prekindergarten.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 77-97.
Henry, G. T., & Rickman, D. K. (2007). Do peers influence
children’s skills development in preschool? Economics
of Education Review, 26, 100—112.
Hill, J. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2003).
Sustained effects of high participation in an early intervention
for low-birth-weight premature infants. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 730-744. http://dx.doi.org
Holahan, A., & Costenbader, V. (2000). A comparison
of developmental gains for preschool children with disabilities
in inclusive and self-contained classrooms. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 224-236.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/027112140002000403
Howes, C, Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D.,
Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready
to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-
Kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly
23, 27-50. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.lOl6/j.ecresq
Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. (2008). Regression discontinuity
designs: A guide to practice, fournal of
Econometrics, 142, 615-635. htrp://dx.doi.org/10.1016
Kochanek, T. T, & Buka, S. L. (1999). Influential factors
in inclusive versus non-inclusive placement for
preschool children with disabilities. Early Education &
Development, 10, 191-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207
Krauss, M. W, & Hauser-Cram, P (1992). Two generations
of family research in early intervention. In M.
Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention
(pp. 611-624). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. (2010). Regression discontinuity
designs in economics, fournal of Econometric Literature,
48, 281-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257
Li-Grining, C. P., Raver, C. C, & Smith-Donald, R.
(2010). School readiness and academic competence during
preschool: Evidence from CSRP. Unpublished
manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Illinois.
Liebman, J. L., & Goodman, J. F. (1995). Learning in
early intervention programs: The generalization and
maintenance of IEP objectives. Early Education and Development,
6, 127-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207
Lordeman, A., & Jones, N. L. (2010). The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Interactions with
selected provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) (Congressional Research Service, No. 7-5700,
RL32913). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Markowitz, J. B., Hehbeler, K., Larson, J. C, Cooper,
J. A., & Edmisten, P. (1991). Using value-added analysis
to examine short-term effects of early intervention.
fournal of Early Intervention, 15, ‘377-389.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C, Hamre, B. K., Downer,
J. T, Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., . . . Howes, C. (2008).
Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and
children’s development of academic, language, and social
skills. Child Development, 79, 732-749.
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. (2001). Examiner’s manual,
Woodcock-fohnson Achievement Test-Ill. Chicago,
IL: Riverside.
McDonnell, A. p., Brownell, K., & Wolery, M. (1997).
Teaching experience and specialist support: A survey of
preschool teachers employed in programs accredited by
NAEYC. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
17, 263-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027112l4
Newborg, J. (2004). Battelle Developmental Inventory,
Second Edition. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside
Odom, S. L, & Diamond, K. E. (1998). Inclusion of
young children with special needs in early childhood
education: The research base. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 13, 3-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016
Odom, S. L., Pungello, E. P, & Gardner-Neblett, N.
(Eds.). (In press). Implications of Developmental Health
Science for Infant/Toddler Care and Poverty. The Guilford
Odom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall,
S., Hanson, M. J., . . . Horn, E. (2004). Preschool
inclusion in the United States: A review of research
from an ecological systems perspective, fournal of Research
on Special Educational Needs, 4, 17-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111 /J. 1471 -3802.2004.00016.x
Palfrey, J. S., Singer, J. D., Walker, D.K., & Buder, J.
A. (1987) Early identification of children’s special
needs: A study in five metropolitan communiries./o«r-
4 8 8 Summer 2012
nal of Pediatrics, 111, 651-659. http://dx.doi
Phillips, D. A., Gormley, W, & Lowenstein, A. (2009).
Inside the pre-kindergarten door: Glassroom climate
and instructional time allocation in Tulsa’s pre-K programs.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24,
213-228. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009
Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, G., Lopez, M.,
Zill, N., . . . Bernstein, H. (2005, May). Head Start impact
study: First year findings. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families.
Redden, S. G., Ramey, S. L., Ramey, G. T., Forness, S.
R., & Brezausek, G. M. (2003). Special education
placements among former Head Start children: A descriptive
multi-site study. Education & Treatment of
Children, 26, 1-21.
Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values.
The Stata Journal, 4, 227-241.
Royston, P. (2005a). Multiple imputation of missing
values: Update. The Stata Journal, 5, 1-14.
Royston, P. (2005b). Multiple imputation of missing
values: Update of ice. The Stata Journal, 5, 527-536.
Rubin, D. B. (1996) Multiple imputation after 18+
years (With discussion). Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 91, 473-489. http://dx.doi.org
Schulting, A. B., Malone, P S., & Dodge, K. A.
(2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition
policies and practices on child academic outcomes.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 860-871. http://dx.
Schwartz, I. S., Garra, J. J., & Grant, S. (1996). Examining
the use of recommended language intervention
practices in early childhood special education classrooms.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16,
251-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027112l4
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V, & Weikart, D. P
(1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry
Preschool study through age 15. Ypsilanti, MI:
ShonkofF, J. P, & Hauser-Gram, P (1987). Early intervention
for disabled infants and their families: A quantitative
analysis. Pediatrics, 80, 650-658.
Shonkoff, J. P, & Meisels, S. J. (2000). Handbook of
early childhood intervention. New York, NY: Gambridge
University Press.
Smith, T., Kleiner, A., Parsad, B., & Farris, E. (2003)
Prekindergarten in U.S. public schools: 2000-2001.
Washington, DG: Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Tuckwiller, E. D., Pullen, P G., & Goyne, M. D.
(2010). The use of the regression discontinuity design
in tiered intervention research: A pilot study exploring
vocabulary instruction for at-risk kindergartners.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 137-150.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-eighth
annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DG: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education, National Genter for
Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
U.S. Departnient of Education, Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education
Programs. (2005, April). Twenty-fifih annual
report to Congress on the irnplementation of the Individuab
with Disabilities Education Act, Vol. 1. Washington,
DG: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Ghildren and Families (2010, January).
Head Start impact study. Einal report. Washington,
DG: Author.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, G. S., Scammacca, N.;
& Linan, S. (2009). Response to early reading intervention:
Examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional
Children, 75, 163-183.
Wakeman, S. Y, Browder, D. M., Meier, I., & McGoll,
A. (2007). The implications of No Ghild Left Behind
for students with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,
13, 143-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002
Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., Bellm, D., Growell, N.,
Alamzaraz, M., & Jo, J. Y. (2004). Two years in early
care and education: A community portrait of quality and
workforce stability. Berkeley, GA: Genter for the Study
of Ghild Gare Employment.
Wolery, M., & BaUey, D. B. (2002). Early childhood
special education research. Journal of Early Intervention,
25, 88-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10538151020
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Brookfield, J., Huffman,
K, Schroeder, G., Martin, G. G., . . . Fleming, L. A.
(1993). The extent and nature of preschool mainstreaming:
A survey of general early educators. The
Journal of Special Education, 27, 222-234. http://dx.doi
Exceptional Children 4 8 9
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Venn, M. L., Brookfield, J.,
Huffman, K., Schroeder, G., . . . Fleming, L. A. (1993).
Preschool mainstreaming: Current status and relevant
issues. Young Children, 49(1), 78-84.
Wolery, M., &c Wilbers, J. S. (1994). Including children
with special needs in early childhood programs. Washington,
DG: National Association for the Education of
Young Ghildren.
Wong, V. G., Gook, T. D., Barnett, W S., & Jung, K.
(2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state
pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 27, 122—154. http://dx.doi.org
Woodcock, R. W, McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N.
(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III NU tests of achievement.
Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W, Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., McGrew, K.
S.; Ô£ Mather, N. (2005). Batería IIIWoodcock-Muñoz.
Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
E. MELOY (DC CEC), Doctoral Student,
Department of Psychology, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC.
Address correspondence concerning this article to
Deborah A. Phillips, Psychology Department,
Georgetown University, 302F White Gravenor
Hall, 3700 O St. NW, Washington, DC 20007
(e-mail: Deborah.dap4@gmail.com).
This research was conducted by scholars affiliated
with the Center for Research on Children in the
United States at Georgetown University. We received
helpful comments from Garolyn Hill,
William Gormley, Michael Guralnick, and W.
Steven Barnett. We greatly appreciate the cooperation
we have received from the Tulsa Public
Schools and its teachers and principals. Finally,
we thank the Foundation for Child Development,
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the
Spencer Foundation, the A. L. Mailman Family
Foundation, the National Institute for Early Education
Research, and the Pew Charitable Trusts
for their generous financial support. We alone are
responsible for the contents of this report. •
Manuscript received February 2011; accepted
June 2011.
Exceptional Cbildren (EC), published four times
a year, is one of the official publications of CEC.
EC is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes
original research on the education and development
of infants, toddlers, children, and youth
with exceptionalities and articles on professional
issues of concern to special educators. Insightful
pioneering research, topical issues, and broad
perspectives by leaders in the field forimore than
75 years have made EC one of the most
respected scholarly journals in special education.
Classifieds are $24 per line with a 12-line minimum.
Black and white ads start at $773.
Other advertising opportunities
TEACHING Exceptional Children
New! Online Advertising
CEC SmartBrief
specialedcareers. org
To download our marketing tool kit, go to
www.cec.sped.org/advertising or contact Victor
Erickson at 703-264-9454 or via e-mail at
Council for Exceptional Children, cover 2,
389, 448, 470, cover 3
4 9O Summer 2012
Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Our Service Charter

  1. Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-Free

    We employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers.
  2. Free Revisions

    We keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed.
  3. Confidentiality / 100% No Disclosure

    We make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service.
  4. Money Back Guarantee

    If the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit.
  5. 24/7 Customer Support

    We have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.

Excellent Quality
Zero Plagiarism
Expert Writers

Instant Quote

Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Urgency (Less urgent, less costly):
Total Cost: NaN

Get 10% Off on your 1st order!