Investing in Early Childhood
and School Readiness on the Palouse:
Resource Assessment and
Strategic Planning
Final Results
Prepared by:
Completed:
Introduction
Investing in Early
Childhood and School Readiness on the Palouse: Resource Assessment and
Strategic Planning (
In order to achieve the goals outlined above, Team Leaders
recruited an
Resource Assessment and
Strategic Planning Process
Team Leaders,
|
Month |
Activity |
|
September – November 2003 |
Project Design. Team Leaders recruited P&I Team
Members, identified Dr. Gentry as the consultant, and outlined the structure
of the year long
|
|
|
P&I Team Meeting 1 – Introduction
and Orientation to Project and Identification of School Success Factors (2.5
hours). During the first Team
Meeting, Team Leaders reviewed the purpose, scope, and timeline of the
project. The P&I Team identified
essential components of school success and school readiness appropriate for
the Palouse region. |
|
|
Educator Focus Group (2.5
hours). Team Leaders and Dr.
Gentry synthesized school success and school readiness information from
P&I Team Meeting 1 into a working description entitled “Characterizing
School Readiness on the Palouse”. Team
Leaders held a Focus Group with educators from local elementary schools and
preschool programs to ensure the working description of school readiness was
valid from the educator perspective. Educators
concurred with the description developed by the P&I Team. With feedback from the Educators, Dr.
Gentry refined the working description.
|
|
December 2003 – February 2004 |
Recruitment of Teachers and
Parents to Survey. Team
Leaders identified all the school districts, superintendents, elementary
schools, elementary school principals, and kindergarten and first grade
teachers in the two county region. Letters were sent to each describing the
process and asking for volunteers to participate in the survey. Team Leaders
worked collaboratively with superintendents and school principals to identify
at least one kindergarten and one first grade teacher from each one of the 25
elementary schools in the region. Survey Design. Dr. Gentry used the working description of
school readiness (described above) to develop two survey tools: a Teacher
Survey and a Parent Survey. Survey
procedures were developed to identify parent and teacher expectations for
school readiness and levels of school readiness in the area. The surveys were structured to provide two
kinds of information: (1) quantitative
information (ratings, rankings, etc.) regarding what is required for
readiness and the extent to which children were thought to be ready for
school and (2) qualitative descriptions about children’s readiness and
characteristics related to readiness. Team
Leaders and Dr. Gentry developed a training session and materials for P &
I Team Members to understand and use each tool. |
|
|
P&I Team Meeting 2 – Data
Collection Training (2.5 hours).
During the 2nd Team Meeting, Team Leaders presented: (1) the
document Characterizing School Readiness on the Palouse, (2) the Teacher and
Parent Surveys, and (3) a list of data to collect for the statistical profile
for the region to the Team. Team
Members provided feedback on each item.
P&I Team Members reviewed the list of teachers and identified which
team member would interview which teacher.
It was determined by the Team at this time to include preschool age
children and teachers in the survey process.
Two Team Members, Pat Eck and Val Cillay, volunteered to lead the
preschool interviews. Dr. Gentry also
provided Team Members with training on interview techniques. |
|
February – May 2004 |
Survey Data Collection. Using the Teacher and Parent Surveys
designed by Dr. Gentry, P&I Team members interviewed families and
educators from across the community and returned results to the YCFP office. Dr. Gentry tabulated the data and, with the
assistance of Team Leaders, developed a preliminary Summary of Teacher
Responses and a Summary of Parent Responses.
Statistical Data Collection. Team Leaders used the list of statistical
data approved by the Team to generate a Statistical Profile of the Entire
Palouse Region (which included data for Latah, Whitman, and the combination
of the two counties) and a Statistical Profile of the Rural Palouse Region
(Potlatch and Existing Community Resources. The Community Compass Resource Guide,
published by YCFP, and the Guide to Community Resources, published by ELS,
were identified as the primary source of existing community resources. (Both guides are updated annually.) |
|
|
P&I Meeting 3 – Review of
Data & Identification of Themes (2.5 hours). The survey data, statistical data, and
resource data were presented to the Team for review. Team members discussed the goodness of fit
between parent and teacher expectations, what factors led to successful
preparation for school, and the barriers that prevented children from being
ready for school. |
|
June – July 2004 |
Preparation of Draft Report. Team Leaders met with Dr. Gentry to review
the data collected and the input from the Team. Dr. |
|
|
P&I Team Meeting 4 – Recommendations
and Final Report – Draft 1 (2.5 hours). Team Leaders presented draft 1 of the final
report to the Team. This report
included a synopsis of the findings along with preliminary recommendations. Team members reviewed the draft report and
provided feedback. |
|
July – August 2004 |
Final Report – Draft 2. Modifications were made to the report based
on feedback from the P & I Team during Meeting #4. Draft 2 was created and mailed to each
member of the P&I Team for final feedback by |
|
September 2004 |
Final Report – Draft 2.2. Based on team feedback and changes made by
Team Leaders and Dr. Gentry, Draft 2.2 was created. |
|
|
Educator Focus Group #2 (1.5
hrs). Team Leaders and Dr. Gentry
invited teachers in the region who had been involved in the first Educator
Focus Group to review Draft 2.2 of the report before it was finalized. |
|
|
Final Report. The Final Report was completed and is currently
housed in the YCFP office. An
Executive Summary was created. Both
will be reproduced and widely distributed throughout the Region. Eventually, the complete report and summary
will be available from www.ycfprograms.org.
|
Findings
Statistical Profile of the Region
Approximately 220 miles south of the Canadian border,
nestled in the rolling hills of wheat and lentils, is a rural, isolated region
geographically known as the Palouse. The Palouse, while referred to by one
name, is actually two separate counties, in two separate states:
In both counties there are only three communities with
populations greater than 1,100:
Land use in on the Palouse is largely agricultural and
public forests (Department of Commerce, 2001).
There is an average of 24.6 persons per square mile in the Palouse
region, illustrating the geographic isolation of this region. Over 26% of those in poverty are
children. Over half of the children in
the Palouse, and up to 75% in some communities, have all parents in the
workforce (US Census Data, 2000). The
composite portrait of Palouse includes affluence mixed with poverty with a
comparatively larger economic center in the central towns of the
Additional statistical information about the region is included below:
Total population 75, 675
Latah 34,
935
Whitman 40,740
Largest population center
Pullman 61.2% of
Total number children under 5 years 3,856 (5.1%)
Latah 1,883 (5.4%)
Whitman 1,973 (4.8%)
Total population living in incorporated towns 60,324 people (79.7%)
Latah 25,882 (74.1%)
Whitman 34,442 (84.5%)
Square Miles 3,236
Latah 1,077 (33%)
Whitman 2,159 (67%)
Persons below poverty 21.15%
Families below poverty 9.45%
Families below poverty with related children under 5 years
of age 616
(40.65% o families in poverty have young children)
Primary Industry
Educational,
health, social service 15,350
(42.5%)
Retail
trade 3,514 (9.8%)
Arts,
entertain, rec, food 3,425 (9.5%)
Birth per year 818
Latah 426
Whitman 392
Children under 6 years with parents in labor force 2,471 (54.55%)
Latah 1,151 (51.5%)
Whitman 1,320 (57.6%)
Estimated number of child care slots 1,460
Infants 105
12-24 mo 153
24-36 mo 345
preschool 857
Public schools
Number of
school districts 19
Latah 6
Whitman 13
Number of
schools with elementary children 25
Latah 11
Whitman 14
Number of
children enrolled in preschool 1,059
Latah 473
Whitman 586
Number of
children enrolled in kindergarten 883
Latah 417
Whitman
466
University Enrollment
UI Students
11,265
WSU
Students 17,439
Existing Community Resources
This section outlines existing community resources that
provide services, to some degree, to families with young children on the
Palouse. An understanding of these
resources is essential so that community members:
The following are existing community resources that provide
services to families with young children in the Latah and Whitman county
area.
|
|
Prenatal |
0-1 |
1-2 |
2-3 |
3-4 |
4-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developmental services |
|
|
Head Start (Latah & Whitman) |
|
|
|
|
|
preschool |
|
YCFP (Latah & Whitman) |
Universal access services,
Parents as Teachers home visits, First Steps, developmental screenings,
parenting classes, resource guide, community calendar, newsletter |
|||||
|
UI Parents as Teachers (Latah) |
Parent education home
visits. |
|||||
|
Even Start Family Literacy Program(Latah) |
Family literacy services for
families. Provide assistance with
Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Equivalency Diploma (GED), English as a Second Language, workplace preparation, and
early childhood education programs. |
|||||
|
Part C (Infant Toddler Prog – Latah / ELS - Whitman) |
|
Services for developmental
delays. |
|
|
||
|
Child Protection (Latah & Whitman) |
|
Intervention to ensure child
safety. Services provided in cases
where abuse has occurred. |
||||
|
Success by Six of the Palouse (Latah & Whitman) |
Fun activities provided by
volunteer parent group, preschool activities for low-income children not
enrolled in Head Start. |
|||||
|
Libraries (Latah & Whitman) |
Comprehensive library
services including |
|||||
|
Hospitals (Latah & Whitman) |
Comprehensive health care
services. |
|||||
|
Health Departments (Latah & Whitman) |
Public Health and WIC
programs |
|||||
|
First Steps / Heath Dept.
( |
Prenatal and infant case
management. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mental Health Professionals / Counselors (L&W) |
Mental health screening and
services. |
|||||
|
Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (L&W) |
|
Assist parents in locating
child care and provide training for child care providers |
||||
|
Physicians (Latah & Whitman) |
Primary care physicians. |
|||||
|
Extension Nutrition Program ( |
|
Nutrition education program. |
||||
|
ATVP (Latah & Whitman) |
Services for individuals
leaving violent homes, child advocacy as children transition in and out of
school |
|||||
|
Community Action (Latah & Whitman) |
Financial and support
services for low-income families. |
|||||
Survey Findings
This section summarizes the results of the Teacher and Parent
surveys completed in February, March and April 2004 by 18 of the P&I Team
members for the
A synopsis of the major themes regarding school readiness is
outlined below. This is not intended to
be a thorough description of the results but a summary of the highlights. Please refer to the Report of Teacher
Responses and Report of Parent Responses for a comprehensive listing of
results.
Finding 1. Rating of School
Readiness.
Both teachers and parents rated children’s readiness for
school using the working description of school readiness outlined in
Characterizing School Readiness on the Palouse.
Teachers identified the number of students that were pretty well ready,
partially ready, and not ready for their classroom and parents identified
whether their child was ready for school when they started kindergarten. They rated as follows:
Teachers rated that, on average, 73% of their students as
pretty well ready, 17% as partially ready, and 10% as not ready. By grade level the results are slightly
different for each grade:
Pretty Well Ready Partially Ready Not Ready
Preschool 83% 13% 4%
Kindergarten 73% 17% 11%
1st Grade 68% 19% 13%
Parents rated kindergarten and first grade children as:
87% very ready
13% not ready
Important to note are two items:
First, teachers of kindergarten and first grade students
rated readiness at school entry at 70.5% while parents of kindergarten and
first grade students rated readiness of children at 87%. This results in a 16.5% difference in the
school readiness rating, with parents identifying children as ready more often
than teachers. According to kindergarten
and first grade teachers, on average approximately 30% of children are not
prepared for school, with 1/3 of these children not at all ready for the
classroom experience. While parents and
teachers appear to disagree about the readiness of some children, teachers
ultimately have a more comprehensive understanding of what is required due to
the nature of their position. This
information, however, does not appear to make it to the parents although many
parents expressed an interest in learning more about what school readiness
actually means. The P&I Team
acknowledged that, from their experience and understanding of current
resources, there are few avenues or opportunities for such communication to
occur.
The P&I Team speculated on the possible reasons for the
difference between parent and teacher ratings of school readiness. This difference may be due to:
·
a difference in expectations of school readiness
between parents and children,
·
the fact that children are expected to be more
skilled than in the past and parents may not be aware of the increased
expectations,
·
parents are excited about their child being ready
for school and want to send them as soon as possible, and
·
the fact that teachers rated their entire
classroom full of students while each parent was rating his or her own
child(ren). The parents that did respond
to the survey may have been the parents with children who were actually more
ready than those who did not respond.
Second, ratings of school readiness from preschool to
kindergarten to first grade students show a consistent decline. For example, 4% of preschool children were
judged to be not ready while 13% of first grade children were judged to be not
ready. At first glance, it appears that
children become less ready for school as they progress through school. The possible explanations for this, as
discussed by the P&I Team, are:
The findings regarding appearance of children’s declining
readiness outlined above are intriguing but it is clear more information is
needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Finding 2. Factors that
a. Socialization and Social Skills vs. Academic
Skills
Quantitative information led to a reasonably clear picture
of what both teachers and parents saw as more important characteristics for
readiness. Parents and teachers rated
the ability of children to relate to one another (socialization) as the most
important requisite for readiness.
Almost, but not quite as high were child self-management and
independence, self-esteem and self-confidence, physical and emotional health,
and communication skills.
Qualitative data was largely consistent with the
quantitative results described above. In
terms of characteristic that were representative of children who were ready,
teachers most frequently mentioned child self-confidence and self-esteem,
independence, and security, followed by ability to listen, attend and respond,
social skills, motivation to learn, basic academic skills, involved parents,
and good communication skills. Parents
most frequently named social skills and interactions followed by motivation to
learn, physical and emotional health, self-confidence and self-esteem, self-management
and independence.
Parents and teachers described children who were not ready
in similar terms. Parents most often
mentioned lack of socialization, lack of self-confidence and independence, lack
of early academic abilities, immaturity (too young), and too short of an
attention span. Parents remarked that
these children would have benefited from more early learning opportunities such
as those provided by preschools.
Teachers mentioned characteristics such as difficulty in attending to
adults or a learning tasks, particularly in group settings, developmental and
emotional immaturity, difficulty in socializing (i.e. difficulty sharing) and
communication, lack of self-esteem, lack of basic academic knowledge (colors,
shapes, etc.), unwillingness to try new things, and lack of independence from
parents.
Of parent and teacher respondents, 22-25% rated early
academic skills as the least important of these abilities. Many parents and teachers remarked that if
children come ready to learn (ability to pay attention, attend, take risks,
interact positively with peers, and have a sense of self confidence) then
teachers can impart academic skills. However,
it is important to point out a discrepancy in these findings. While teachers downplayed the importance of
early academic skills, they used academic measures as an indicator of
readiness, especially in first grade.
b. Accountability Standards and Standardized
Testing
This issue of increased accountability standards and
standardized testing brought on by the No Child Left Behind Act were repeatedly
raised. Parents expressed confusion
about the new standards, sometimes only aware that there were new requirements
but not certain as to what they were.
Parents also expressed concern about their children’s ability to keep up
with the higher standards. Teachers and
educators expressed frustration with the new standards stating that
standardized test scores currently used are not an accurate description of what
a child can actually do. Teachers
pointed to the need to view the whole child when making decisions about
readiness or advancement to a higher grade.
P&I Team members discussed the need for a shared accountability
between parents, teachers, the educations system, and the community. This was described in terms of institutional readiness, or the schools and decision makers responsibility
to provide what is needed for each child just as each child and family needs to
strive to be successful. An emphasis was
placed on a more balanced assessment of readiness and success rather than the
move toward “teaching to test taking”.
c. Summer Birthdays
The currently policy in the area regarding school entry is
that children need to turn 5 years of age before September 1 of that year in
order to enter into kindergarten. Many
teachers and parents commented on the maturity level of students, especially
boy students, who had birthdays in the summer time. Parents and teachers described these children
as being less mature and less ready than other students. The P&I Team, however, came back to the
notion of institutional readiness when interpreting this finding. The birth date cut off is an arbitrary
artifact of mankind and flies in the face of research that demonstrates the
need to look at the needs of each child.
The Team pointed out that if the cut off date was moved to May, for
example, then children who had May birthdays would be seen as younger and less
ready. The Team strongly emphasized the
need to look at the individual child and start where the learner is, which
requires the institution’s readiness for the child as well as the child’s
readiness for the institution.
Finding 3. Transition to School.
Parents reported on the of their child’s transition into the
public school system. Parents reflected
back on the experience of their children in general.
83% report
transition was fairly to very easy
17% report
difficulties with transition to school
While there is a difference between the percentage of families who rated their child as very ready for school and the percentage that had difficulty with the transition (4% of the children had difficulty with the transition even though they were rated as very ready for school) this difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, it appears that from a parent’s perspective, if their child appeared ready for school, they also seemed to have little difficulty transitioning to school.
Finding 4. Challenges Reported
By Parents and Teachers.
Parents and teachers identified challenges or barriers to
preparing children for school.
Finding 5. Goodness of Fit Between Parent and Teacher Expectations.
Approximately 95% of both parents and teachers agreed with
the working description of school readiness outlined in the “Characterizing
School Readiness on the Palouse” document.
Both groups identified socialization and social-emotional factors as a
high priority for school preparedness, both rated academic skills as the lowest
priority, both identified lack of social-emotional skills as the largest
barrier to school success, and both agreed that parents play an important role
in preparing their children for school and should be given adequate information
about readiness and transitioning. Parents
and teachers differed, however, in their rating of children’s actual readiness
for school with parents rating children as more ready than teachers (see
Finding 1). Another difference is that teachers
tended to identify the home environment as part of the solution while parents tended
to identify activities outside the home as part of the solution.
Finding 6. Communication Challenges.
While there are many valuable services available for parents
and children from prenatal to school entry, there is no systematic way to
coordinate the services available in each county or across the two county region. Both counties
have early learning collaborative groups that have increased the communication
and collaboration among early learning programs, however much fragmentation
exists due to limited time and resources to devote to this voluntary
activity. There is little to no
connection between early learning programs and school districts and no
formalized avenue for communicating on topics such as school readiness. Likewise, there is no systematic way to
communicate with parents of children who have not yet entered school.
Finding 7. Potential Partners and Past
Collaborations.
Each of the agencies listed in the chart are potential
partners who can play a significant role in addressing barriers to school
readiness. Many of the partners listed
have already engaged in some level of cooperative or collaborative activities
on behalf of families with young children and many have expressed continued
interest in working together.
Finding 8. Similarities and Differences Between States
While the funding streams and organization of agencies
varies somewhat between the states, there are more similarities than
differences, making the possibility of collaborating across the state line a
viable option.
Priorities and Recommendations
The P&I Team identified priorities and recommendations
for future action based on the above findings.
These recommendations are applicable to both Latah and
Given the existing fragmentation and barriers to
communication, the overall recommendation of primary importance is to create a sustained
system to provide long term focus on these and future findings related to
school readiness. This system
should accentuate cooperation and collaboration among local groups. One suggestion is a joint council institutionalized
within the county government structure that reports directly to the
In an effort to identify achievable, measurable goals and
objectives, each of the recommendations meets the following criteria:
·
Direct link to the findings,
·
Can be realistically accomplished within the
next two to five years,
·
Involve collaboration among community partners, and
·
Specific attainable action steps can be
identified to demonstrate progress, improvement, or goal achievement.
|
Recommendations |
Possible
Activities |
|
Recommendation 1. Create a sustainable system to provide long term focus on
these and future findings related to school readiness across the Palouse
region. |
Joint council institutionalized within the county
government structure of both Latah and Whitman regarding early care and
learning and school readiness. This
council would reports directly to the |
|
Recommendation 2. Establish formal avenues of communication between early
care and learning and public school personnel so that a shared vision of
school readiness and accountability can be developed. |
·
Planned and structured sessions that would
begin dialogue between early care and learning teachers and school district
teachers regarding (1) school readiness and (2) a systematic way of
communicating regarding issues.
|
|
Recommendation 3. Increase all parents understanding of school readiness
through communication and services regarding school readiness, with a focus
on the social emotional skills needed for school success. Identify innovative
services for high risk families (i.e. families whose children are rated as
least ready and are typically resistant to standard service delivery
strategies). |
|
|
Recommendation 4. Do continued research on school readiness including: the idea of institutional readiness; how
child care affects school readiness; why parents and teachers rated children
differently; and why children were
rated as increasingly not ready for school as they progressed through the
grades. |
|
|
Recommendation 5. Work jointly to identify funding sources to support
activities. Identify financial or
other incentives to encourage and reward collaboration among early care and
education programs and school districts.
|
|
Project Limitations
While the Planning and Implementation Team attempted to be
as thorough and comprehensive and possible in their approach to this project,
there were very real limitations that team members struggled with.
Summary
The Invest in the Palouse Planning Team has worked for the
past 12 months to study school readiness on the Palouse (Latah and Whitman
counties), substantively involving parents, teachers and members from all segments
of the community. The process involved
data gathering, focus groups and meetings for deliberation of issues and
findings. From these studies and
deliberations, the working group has identified eight categories of findings
and produced five major recommendations, all of which are explicitly detailed
in this report. An important concluding
observation should be noted. We have
learned much about parent and teacher perceptions about children’s readiness
for school. And, there is much of
substance that can be done. Any actual improvement
in children’s readiness, however, will only come with a commitment to action of
personnel from policy leaders to service providers, with a formal systemic plan
to be acted upon, and with detailed actions to be implemented and
assessed. It is the conclusion of the P
& I planning team that this year’s work will have
been pointless if it results only in a report to be filed and to other meetings
that produce no systemic actions.
For more information about this project, please contact:
Marci Schreiber, Director
Young Children & Family Programs of the Palouse
208.883.6454
Young Children and Family Programs of the Palouse ©
2004
This instrument may be used for non-profit education and research purposes;
the
original authorship must be acknowledged.