Prof. Daniel Willingham‏ e.a.  "Kindergarten is the new 1st grade" but are kids actually learning more? Yes!

Literacy Achievement Trends at Entry to First Grade

Jerome V. D’Agostino, Emily Rodgers
First Published March 1, 2017 research-article

Recent shifts in policy and practice have brought an increasingly more academic focus to the early grades, evidenced in rising standards and the now widely accepted notion that kindergarten is the new first grade. These views however are mostly supported by teacher and parent self-reports and not by an analysis of literacy achievement data.

We created an up-to-date literacy profile for beginning readers using a multiple cohort database that contained achievement data for students at entry to first grade (n = 364,738) in the same schools (n = 2,358) over a 12-year period starting in 2002.

Our finding that overall beginning of first-grade reading achievement for both low achieving and more typically achieving students improved measurably between 2002 and 2013 provides empirical support for the growing academic focus in the early grades.

References

Bassok D., Latham S., Rorem A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 2(1), doi:10.1177/2332858415616358 Google Scholar Link

Beaver J. M. (2006). Teacher guide: Developmental reading assessment, Grades K–3. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Education. Google Scholar

Center on Education Policy. (2008). Has student achievement increased since 2002? State test score trends through 2006–2007. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar

Center on Response to Intervention. (2016). Screening tool chart. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/…/tools-ch…/screening-tools-chart Google Scholar

Clay M. (2013). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar

Cunningham A. E., Nathan R. G., Raher K. S. (2011). Orthographic processing in models of word recognition. In Kamil M. L., Pearson P. D., Moje E. B., Afflerbach P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 259–285). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

D’Agostino J. V. (2012). Technical review committee confirms highest NCRTI ratings for Observation Survey of Literacy Achievement. Journal of Reading Recovery, 11(2), 53–56. Google Scholar

Denton C. A., Ciancio D., Fletcher J. (2006). Validity, reliability, and utility of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 8–34. Google Scholar CrossRef

Denton K., West J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade (NCES-2002-125). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Google Scholar

Ehri L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116–125. Google Scholar CrossRef

Entwhistle D. R., Alexander K. L. (1998). Facilitating the transition to first grade: the nature of the transition and research on factors affecting it. Elementary School Journal, 98, 351–364. Google Scholar CrossRef

Gamse B. C., Jacob R. T., Horst M., Boulay B., Unlu F. (2008). Reading First impact study final report (NCEE 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar

Gamson D. A., Lu X., Eckert S. A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher, 42(7), 381–391. Google Scholar Link

Gansle K. A., Noell G. H., VanDerHeyden A. M., Naquin G. M., Slider N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 477–497. Google Scholar

Gómez-Bellengé F., Rodgers E., Wang C., Schulz M. (2005, April). Examination of the validity of the observation survey with a comparison to ITBS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. Google Scholar

Good R. H., Kaminski R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Google Scholar

Graham S., Berninger V. W., Abbott R. D., Abbott S. P., Whitaker D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. Google Scholar CrossRef

Hamilton L. S., Stecher B. M., Yuan K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Washington, DC: Rand Corporation. Google Scholar

Harmey S. J. (2015). Change over time in children’s co-constructed writing (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus. Google Scholar

Holliman A. J., Hurry J., Douetil J. (2010). Standardisation of the observation survey in England and Wales, UK. London: University of London Institute of Education. Google Scholar

Hyson M. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs: NAEYC’s standards for initial licensure, advanced, and associate degree programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Google Scholar

Invernizzi M., Justice L., Landrum T. J., Booker K. (2004). Early literacy screening in kindergarten: Widespread implementation in Virginia. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(4), 479–500. Google Scholar Link

Invernizzi M., Meir J., Juel C. (2007). PALS 1-3: Phonological awareness literacy screening 1–3 (6th ed). Charlottesville, VA: University Printing Services. Google Scholar

Justice L. M., Piasta S. (2011). Developing children’s print knowledge through adult-child storybook reading interactions: Print referencing as an instructional practice. In Neuman S. B., Dickinson D. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 200–213). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

Kirby J. R., Georgiou G. K., Martinussen R., Parrila R. (2010). Naming speed and reading: From prediction to instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 341–362. Google Scholar CrossRef

Lemons C. J., Fuchs D., Gilbert J. K., Fuchs L. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education Research. Educational Researcher, 43, 242–252. Google Scholar Link

McCutchen D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 431–444. Google Scholar CrossRef

Melby-Lervåg M., Lyster S. A. H., Hulme C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322–352. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/…/tables/dt15_103.10.asp… Google Scholar

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016b). Early childhood longitudinal program. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/comparisons2011.asp Google Scholar

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). User’s guide to universal screening tools chart. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention. Google Scholar

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar

Neuman S., Roskos K. (2003). The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 125–145. Google Scholar CrossRef

Paris S. G. (2011). Developmental differences in early reading skills. In Neuman S. B., Dickinson D. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 228–241). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

Paternoster R., Brame R., Mazerolle P., Piquero A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients, Criminology, 36, 859–866. Google Scholar CrossRef

Pearson P. D., Hiebert E. H. (2010). National reports in literacy building a scientific base for practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 286–294. Google Scholar Link

Piasta S. B., Wagner R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 8–38. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Pinnell G. S., Lyons C. A., Deford D. E., Bryk A. S., Seltzer M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 9–39. Google Scholar CrossRef

Raudenbush S. W., Bryk A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar

Reardon S. F., Portilla X. A. (2016). Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school readiness gaps at kindergarten entry. AERA Open, 2(3). doi:10.1177/2332858416657343. Google Scholar Link

Ritchey K. D. (2006). Learning to write: Progress-monitoring tools for beginning and at-risk writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2), 22. Google Scholar Abstract

Roberts T. A., Christo C., Shefelbine J. A. (2011). Word recognition. In Kamil M. L., Pearson P. D., Moje E. B., Afflerbach P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 229–258). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

Rock D. A., Pollack J. M., Germino-Hausken E. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS–K), psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade, NCES 2002–05. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Google Scholar

Rosenthal R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In Cooper H., Hedges L. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar

Shepard L. A., Smith M. L. (1988). Escalating academic demand in kindergarten: Counterproductive policies. Elementary School Journal, 89(2), 135–145. Google Scholar CrossRef

Shinn M. R., Germann G. (2006). AIMSweb. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc. Google Scholar

Stanovich K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

Vellutino F. R., Fletcher J. M., Snowling M. J., Scanlon D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Wang S., McCall M., Jiao H., Harris G. (2013). Construct validity and measurement invariance of computerized adaptive testing: Application to Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 88–100. Google Scholar CrossRef

West J., Denton K., Germino-Hauskin- E. (2000). America’s kindergartners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar

West J., Denton K., Reaney L. M. (2000). The kindergarten year: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, kindergarten class of 1998–99 (Report No. 143). Washington, DC: Education Statistics Services. Google Scholar

Xue Y., Meisels S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study—Kindergarten class of 1998–1999. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 191–229. Google Scholar Link