Republication of “Preschool Programs: Preliminary Findings”

Abstract

Editor’s Note

In recent years, more than 700,000 children aged 3 through 5 years identified with speech or language impairments (44%), developmental delay (37%), autism (9%), and other disabilities (10%) received federally supported special education services. For our republished article in the inaugural issue of the 50th anniversary volume, we have selected a historical piece by David P. Weikart. Working in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the early 1960s, Weikart and his colleagues saw the need for—and projected the benefits of providing—structured educational experiences to preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds. His work on the Perry Preschool Project is widely recognized as a foundation for evidence-based practices driving continuing interest in and success of early childhood education and special education programs today.

On the final day of the 1961 annual convention of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, a panel of child development experts presented a series of papers on the educational problems of the disadvantaged child. The consensus of the panel was that a preschool intervention program might be what was needed to correct the intellectual deficits with which disadvantaged children start out in school. When this group met, such thinking was largely speculative. The panel little anticipated what was to come: the massive adoption of preschool intervention as a nation-wide answer to the educational problems of the disadvantaged child. Yet in 1965 more than 500,000 four- and five-year-olds attended six to eight weeks of preschool financed by more than $90,000,000 of federal funds, and Operation Head Start had moved into the national conscience as a national “good.”

It is generally agreed that intervention before the disadvantaged child attends regular school is the most promising area for action. Bloom (1964) pointed out in his summary of the research on child development that the period before four years of age is the time of greatest intellectual growth and is therefore the optimal time for training. Scott (1962), working with animals, developed the concept of “critical period.” Observing the effect of various kinds of deprivation, such as isolation, on lambs and puppies, he concluded that timing was a crucial factor in early environmental conditions and hypothesized that various kinds of experiences have a major effect when they occur at one period in time but not when they occur at another period. “Organization can be strongly modified only when active processes of organization are going on.” Krech (1960), Rosenzweig (1964), Bennett (1964), and others have successfully identified and measured physiological changes in the brain that relate directly to early experiences in carefully controlled studies with laboratory rats.

Pasamanick & Knoblock (1961) have documented the impact of deprivation most vividly in their study of infant development. Employing samples of Negro and White infants selected for equal birth weights and absence of defects or premature birth, and using the Gesell Development Scale, they found no significant difference between the two groups at 40 weeks of age; the White babies obtained a developmental quotient of 105.4 and the Negro babies as DQ of 104.5. At age 3, the first 300 of the original 1,000 children studied were retested and a highly significant difference was found. The developmental quotient of the White children rose to 110.9, while the DQ of the Negro children fell to 97.4. Bayley (1965) found no differences between 1- to 15-month-old Negro and White babies nor between boys and girls, first-born and later born, or babies from different cultural backgrounds and geographical locations.

In view of research evidence such as the above, then, preschool intervention between 10 months and age 5 ought to prevent or correct the cognitive deficits found in disadvantaged children. What results support this conclusion?

Preschools are not virgin territory. They are inhabited, traditionally, by successful and intelligent middle-class children and taught by university-trained teachers. The teaching methods traditionally employed are child-centered and permissive. Sears & Dowley (1963, p. 814) characterize these methods “… watching and waiting for the child’s needs to emerge and determine the timing of different activities …” The specific aims of the traditional nursery program are seen as (p. 822): (a) meeting organic needs and establishing routine habits; (b) developing motor skills and confidence; (c) developing manipulatory skills; (d) developing control and restraint; (e) developing appropriate behavior; (f) psycho-sexual development; (g) language development; (h) intellectual development.

Research on programs with these traditional curriculum goals has produced varied results. Reviews of the literature by Fuller (1960), Sears & Dowley (1963), and Swift (1964) indicate that for middle-class children, on the whole, there is no difference on any characteristic or dimension between control and experimental groups by the time the groups reach the third grade. There are indications, however, from the early and extensive work of Skeels (1966), Skodak (1949), and others at the Iowa Child Welfare station and from Kirk’s (1958) more recent study with mentally handicapped children that children who are labeled as culturally deprived may be directly and permanently aided by preschool experiences. Recent reviews by Robinson (1966) and Fowler (1966) also support cautious optimism in respect to such improvements. With this background we come to the present and a major wave of studies focused entirely on disadvantaged preschool children.

The Research

The current research can be categorized by the specific disadvantaged population studied, by the range of services provided, and by the program or curriculum methods used in the treatment phase of the project. Unfortunately, many current projects are either short-term programs without planned follow-up or are still in progress, so that long-term data on effectiveness of intervention are not available. For critical evaluation, most studies include social, emotional, and cognitive factors. A few have planned for the use of standardized achievement tests as long-term criteria.

The various populations under study are Northern Negro in great city slum areas and metropolitan fringe cities, Southern Negro, Northern White, and institutionalized mentally retarded.

The project services range from simple short-term programs with limited objectives to ambitious programs aiming at a total impact. A typical short-term project would be one of these: a several-days-a-week nursery, a six-to-eight-week summer preschool, or a concentrated reading-readiness program. A total impact project would include all of these: at least two years of preschool experience, carefully planned parent education programs, regular home visits by teachers and social workers, and medical services.

For the purposes of this review, various projects will be summarized and grouped on the basis of their specific curriculum orientation. It is this orientation, rather than the over-all project services rendered, that seems to determine the results. Three different basic preschool teaching methods are used, which can be summarized as follows:

Traditional nursery school methods “Watching and waiting for the child’s needs to emerge and determine the timing of different activities.” The primary goals are for social, emotional, and motor development.

Structured nursery school methods. Carefully sequenced presentations of teacher-planned activities according to a specific developmental theory. The primary goals are cognitive and language development. Traditional nursery school materials and activities are frequently employed, but used to achieve predetermined goals.

Task-oriented nursery school methods. Carefully sequenced presentations of teacher-planned program activities to accomplish specific predetermined goals such as reading, arithmetic, or logical thinking. New, specifically designed, task-related activities and materials are employed; those of the traditional nursery school are not.

The primary instrument for assessing the effectiveness of intervention programs has been the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. While the instrument has been criticized as being too culture-bound to be an effective test of intelligence for disadvantaged children, no major scale has been available to effectively replace it with younger children. In addition, its predictive validity correlations with academic success in school and later job attainment remain unimpeachable.

The critical results from intervention programs are not those associated with IQ change, of course, but with improvement in achievement. Unfortunately, there is very little research information relevant to this problem, as most studies have not investigated long-term effects of early stimulation programs.

The following section of this paper presents examples of each of the three intervention methods along with the available statistical data. Where possible, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is used as the immediate dependent variable or criterion of effectiveness, and achievement tests are used as the intermediate dependent variable.

Programs Employing Traditional Nursery School Methods

Four programs will be discussed: (a) Alpern’s Community Center Project; (b) Henderson’s Preschool and Primary Education Project; (c) Strodtbeck’s Reading Readiness Project; (d) Operation Head Start.

It is inaccurate to classify all of these programs as traditional nursery schools. Many new and varied techniques have been employed. The projects are presented in a rough continuum from those using the most to those using the least traditional methods.

Alpern’s Community Center Project

Overview of project and program. Alpern (1966) evaluated an enrichment program for socially disadvantaged children sponsored by a community house which for many years has operated nursery school programs. Two groups of four-year-olds with 22 children in each group were formed before the start of school in the Fall of 1964. The groups were matched for sex, intelligence and “readiness” as measured by the Metropolitan Readiness Test, Form R. The curriculum goals of the school were to: (a) increase the children’s language skills, (b) develop positive attitudes toward the concepts of teacher, learning, and school, and (c) increase knowledge of middle-class values and experiences. The experimental group attended nursery school three times a week with an average attendance of 72 sessions. The control group did not have this experience.

Results. The first year results were: (a) There were no differences in intelligence between the groups at the time of initial or second testing, (b) Both groups made significant gains in all three readiness measures for initial to second testing, and (c) There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the readiness tests. A follow-up is to be undertaken.

Henderson’s Preschool and Primary Education Project

Overview of project. The Ford Foundation has sponsored several major preschool experimental programs. The Preschool and Primary Education Project of the Council for Human Services in Pennsylvania (Henderson, 1965) is an illustration of these. The project has two components: short-term summer schools and year-round programs that serve over 1,000 children. Included, too, are parent education programs with educational visits to the home by teachers as often as twice a month and/or direct case service by trained social workers. The administrative control is widely diffused to each participating school district, and only the data collection is centralized at the project’s headquarters in Harrisburg, Pa. The project is still under-way.

The year-round program differed from the summer program in its greater stress on language development and in its more ordered and sequential introduction of new materials and experiences to the children. The actual curriculum and methods, however, were the responsibility of each individual teacher. To ascertain the focus the teachers gave to their individual programs, they were each asked to list the main accomplishments of the summer:

About two thirds of the teachers listed the main accomplishments of the program as either social, emotional, or motoric.

Fewer than one quarter listed the main accomplishments as intellectual (for example, cognition and language).

Half of the teachers did not list any cognitive or language accomplishments for the summer program.

Almost all of the teachers perceived the key learning problems to be of a social nature.

Results. The results of the summer project on standardized tests include data on the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was not employed. For those children who attended the summer preschool project augmented by a year of parent education and assistance from teachers and social workers, no significant differences between the experimental and control groups on the PPVT IQ and the ITPA Language Quotient were found.

The results of the year-round program are not much different. Measured after a year of preschool and three months of kindergarten, the experimental group was found to have a significantly higher PPVT score than its control group. The groups were not significantly different on the ITPA Language Quotient. A second group to have preschool experience was also compared with a control group. This time no significant differences were found between experimental and control groups on either PPVT or ITPA IQ.

At the entrance into first grade, experimental and control children were compared on the Metropolitan Readiness Test. The results indicate the experimental and control children are about equally “ready” for first grade instruction since no significant differences were found.

Strodtbeck’s Reading Readiness Project

Overview of project. Strodtbeck (1963) initiated a reading-readiness nursery program for four-year-old Negro children. It was felt that the preschool relationship with the family could be used to improve the child’s later school adjustment and the mother’s understanding of the educative process. The research design called for a continuing series of groups (about N-10 in each) to participate in a 13-week reading-readiness program. Testing was done three months before the child’s entrance into the nursery, at entrance, and at end of nursery. This method used each child as his own control by testing three months before treatment.

Program. The program had various goals depending upon the methods and orientation of the different teachers in charge. This project is one of the few where two basic styles of curriculum were employed. Groups I and II (N-15) experienced a program described as “mothering while teaching.” The teachers observed the children and noted the natural leadership in the group-teaching intervention centered about the spontaneously generated activity of the children. The teachers prided themselves on the development of maturity in the children’s peer relations. These methods are those traditional to nursery schools.

Groups III, IV, and V experienced a different, more controlled teaching style. The teachers closely supervised free play activities and demonstrated to the children how to carry out the activities and projects. Verbal participation was greatly encouraged and emphasis was placed upon the noonday meal. The method closely parallels those of projects reported in the next section.

Results. The study is one of the few research projects which permit a tentative comparison for teaching methods on several replicated samples. There is a clear difference of 4.3 IQ points (significance level not available) between the attainment of the children in the readiness program taught by traditional methods and the readiness program taught by a some-what structured method, in favor of those taught by the structured method.

Operation Head Start

Overview of project. Operation Head Start was a massive Federal program involving more than 500,000 children. While research was built into the program, much of the project study did not employ control groups. The project included six to eight weeks of preschool, parent involvement, medical services to children, and nutrition programs. The teachers for the project were not required to be certified preschool teachers, but all attended at least a week of paid orientation at universities and colleges throughout the country.

Program. While traditional-style nursery school methods seem to have been used in most programs, the general fervor with which the project was implemented produced many innovations.

Results. Allegato (1966), in reviewing the data released by the Head Start Headquarters, quotes Richmond, director of the project for the Office of Economic Opportunity, as saying that Head Starters gained an average of nine points in IQ (probably the PPVT). He also said that they were more proficient in learning, had more intellectual curiosity, and were better adjusted to the classroom. “Standard tests showed significant gains in the educational achievements and mental ability of Head Start children all across the country.”

Sigel, however, in a personal communication, commented on the Merrill-Palmer findings in the Detroit Head Start groups. After one month of kindergarten in regular Detroit programs, there were no differences on the PPVT between those children who had attended Head Start and those from the same environment who had not. While these findings cannot be generalized to all 561,000 Head Starters, the implications are strong that eight weeks of summer school and four weeks of regular school both produce change in participating children.

Discussion

Qualitative evaluation was included in most of the project reports. Nearly all reports contained an enthusiastic section discussing the general response of the children to the program. “He didn’t talk for six weeks and now listen to him!” is a typical comment. Asking questions, use of new language, and, of course, social, emotional, and motor development, were also remarked upon by the teachers.

On the standardized tests, where carefully controlled research has been employed, the results are consistent. The total outcome of all projects using the so-called traditional methods of nursery school education with a disadvantaged population is that there are no statistically significant differences on standardized intelligence tests or achievement measures. Long-term follow-up data are not available. The absence of differences between groups may be altered by later growth by experimental groups or increased deficits in control groups. At this time no specific theoretical position can be substantiated.

Programs Employing Structured Nursery School Methods

Five such programs will be described briefly: (a) Dawe’s Institutional Training Program; (b) Kirk’s Early Education of the Mentally Retarded Project; (c) Gray and Klaus’s Early Training Project; (d) Deutsch’s Preschool and Early Elementary Education Project; (e) Weikart’s Perry Preschool Project.

While these five projects depart radically in some ways from the concerns of the traditional nursery school, the basic teacher–child relationship is preserved, with its focus on social adjustment, peer relations, good work habits, etc. The structure is derived from the programs’ clearly stated goals for specific cognitive and language development.

Dawe’s Institutional Training Program

Overview of project. Dawe (1942) conducted a short-term training program for orphanage children. She carefully matched 22 children and assigned one of each pair to an experimental group and the other to a control group. An extra child was placed in the experimental group. A special training program was offered to the experimental children over a 92-day period with an average of 50 hours for each child in sessions usually held on weekends.

Program. Dawe designed a program that emphasized factors related to superior language development. She had individual tutoring sessions in which classification of words by pattern and situation setting was stressed. There was informal conversation about words and their meanings, with attempts to give a referent for each word through its use in a variety of settings. There were small group sessions for story-telling, discussions about pictures, and excursions. She attempted to stimulate curiosity, to help the child think critically, notice relationships and cause and effect, and to eliminate careless thinking and careless use of language.

Results. The data from pre- and post-testing on the Stanford-Binet are presented in Table 1. Even though the contact with each child averaged only 50 hours, the experimental group gained 14.2 points in IQ (80.6 to 94.8). The control children, who experienced no substantial change in their environment, lost 2.0 points in 10 (81.5 to 79.5). The difference in final IQ scores is statistically significant. No further follow-up data are available, but Dawe also observed, from the daily lesson commentaries, that the children had improved in language ability, asked intellectual questions, and made more critical comments and analytical remarks.

Table 1.

Dawe: Effects of Institutional Training Program.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 12)	Control (n = 11)	Difference	Significance
Pre-test	80.6	81.5	−0.9	n.s.
Post-test^a	94.8	79.5	15.3	.01

The post-test was given at the end of 92 days with the children in the experimental group averaging 50 hours of training.

Kirk’s Early Education of the Mentally Retarded

Overview of project. In 1958, Kirk reported on an extensive project, conducted over a five-year period, for mentally retarded children. The study included experimental and control groups drawn both from the community at large and from institutions. The project involved 81 children, whose retardation was related to organic development, cultural deprivation, or both.

The children, drawn from several cities in central Illinois, spent one to three years in a special preschool program and then entered either the first grade or special classes in the public schools.

It is from this study by Kirk that much of the current impetus for preschool education is derived.

Program. The specially designed program was constructed around (a) specific adaptation of materials and activities for each child, with careful attention to special individual needs as revealed by diagnostic study, and (b) individual tutoring in the areas of specific mental disabilities.

Results. The project used a number of tests to assess the progress of the children and included attempts to measure social development as well as intellectual change. Tests of statistical significance were run on change scores from initial to final tests. Experimental and control groups were not directly compared. Table 2 presents the results of the Stanford-Binet testing at the beginning and completion of the program and at the end of the first year of regular school attendance. All change scores are statistically significant for the experimental groups when compared to change scores obtained by control groups.

Table 2.

Kirk: Early Education of Mentally Retarded.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 25)	Contrast (n = 24)	Difference	Significance
Community Groups
Pre-test	72.5	75.8	−3.3	n/a*
Post-test^a at end of preschool	83.7	75.2	8.5	n/a
Post-test^b at end of first grade	84.2	82.7
Institution Groups
	Experimental (n = 15)	Comparison (n = 12)	Difference	Significance
Pre-test	61.0	57.1	3.9	n/a
Post-test^a at end of preschool	73.0	49.9	23.1	n/a
Post-test^c at end of first grade	71.2	50.6	20.6	n/a

The preschool experience for each child ranged from one to three years.

The first grade experience was provided in regular or special public school classrooms.

The first grade experience was provided for six of the experimental children in regular or public school classrooms. The remaining institutional children attended classes within the institution.

Not available.

The overall increase by the community experimental group was 11.7 IQ points derived primarily from the preschool experience. The increase by the community control group was 6.9 IQ points obtained after the year of school experience. At the conclusion of the first grade, the Gates Primary Reading Tests were administered to all groups. The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in reading achievement at that time. The inability of the experimental group to “do better” than the control group was confirmed by teacher ratings of reading ability.

Gray and Klaus’s Early Training Project

Overview of project. One of the early studies in the current series was initiated by Gray and Klaus (1965) in Murfreesboro, Tenn. The Early Training Project involved carefully selected experimental and control groups of Negro children. One experimental group (N-20) had three summers of preschool experience and a second group (N-20) two summers of preschool experience of ten weeks each summer before entering regular first grade. Both groups were visited in their homes by a project visitor each week throughout the year between preschool experiences. A local community control group (N-20) was established as well as a distal control group (N-27) in a nearby community. Follow-up is still in progress.

Program. The curriculum was specifically designed to prevent the accumulation of deficits generally thought to occur in the development of disadvantaged children. The curriculum procedures were based upon a review of the literature on differences in social class, in child-rearing practices, in motivational patterns, in language, and in perceptual and cognitive development. Two classes of variables were employed in the day-to-day programing. The first class comprised attitudes toward achievement, especially as related to the kinds of activities expected in school, persistence, ability to delay gratification, and interest in typical school materials. The second class comprised aptitudes necessary for achievement, especially as related to perceptual and cognitive development and to language.

Results. The project was evaluated by several intelligence and achievement tests. Over the two-year period, the experimental groups gained an average of 7 IQ points while the control group lost an average of 5 IQ points. The difference in final scores is statistically significant. While the results of only two testing periods are given, a total of five Stanford-Binet or Wechsler Intelligence Scale tests were administered between 1962 and 1964.

The project reports that on first grade screening tests, the experimental children did “conspicuously” better than the controls. No statistical data are given.

Deutsch’s Preschool and Early Elementary Education Project

Overview of project. The Institute for Developmental Studies of New York City under the direction of Deutsch (1965) has instituted a series of intensive and far-reaching studies on the preschool and early elementary education of disadvantaged children. The experiments on the preschool level involve a complex design of special treatments of varying lengths. The effect of both one- and two-year preschool programs are being tested, as well as the impact of specially designed kindergarten through third grade classes. The information available at this time involves youngsters in experimental groups who have participated in special classes at age 4 and then have moved into specially enriched kindergarten programs. The control children did not participate in preschool and entered kindergarten directly. Most of the children are Negro. The project is still in progress.

Program. The program has been described as having no single philosophic system or theory behind it (Deutsch, 1965). The approach is seen as flexible and exploratory. “Eclectic combinations of the developmental and educational theories advanced by such workers as Piaget, Hunt, Bruner, Montessori, Jensen among others” (p. 58) is the Annual Report’s description of the classroom curriculum development efforts. The physical space of the classroom is ordered to help build the child’s concepts of order and space. Efforts are made to enhance the child’s self-concept through the use of Negro dolls, stories involving Negro children, and photographs of the child himself. Language development is encouraged through classroom activities designed to elicit verbal responses. Auto-instructional devices have been developed and are employed at all program levels. These include the Listening Center with tape-recorded lessons and stories and the use of the Bell and Howell Language Master.

Attention is given to training in auditory and visual discrimination. The activities involved in the training also serve as a means of teaching concepts and imparting knowledge. Extensive supervision is provided for teachers of the experimental groups.

Results. Goldstein (1965) presented the results on two groups of children who had participated in the pre-kindergarten program (see Table 3). For Group I, the net gain in the two years is 5.0 IQ points for the experimental group as contrasted with a loss of 7.0 IQ points for the control group. The second experimental group demonstrates a similar pattern, though the control group did not lose as much over the one-year period for which the data are available. The post-test score differences between the groups are statistically significant in all cases.

Table 3.

Goldstein: Institute of Developmental Studies.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 41)	Control (n = 29)	Difference	Significance
Group I Data
Pre-test, entrance into Prekindergarten, 1962	98.9	99.0	−0.1	n.s.
Post-test at end of Prekindergarten, 1963	102.2	93.3	8.9	.01
Post-test at end of kindergarten, 1964	103.9	92.0	11.9	.01
Group II Data
	Experimental (n = 59)	Control (n = 41)	Difference	Significance
Pre-test, entrance into Prekindergarten, 1963	93.2	95.1	−1.9	n.s.
Post-test at end of Prekindergarten, 1964	98.8	94.0	4.8	.05

Large amounts of other data have been collected by the Institute, including that from the PPVT, the ITPA, and the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. No information on achievement data are available at this time.

Weikart’s Perry Preschool Project

Overview of project. The Perry Preschool Project² is an experiment to assess the longitudinal effects of a two-year program designed to compensate for the mental retardation that is associated with cultural deprivation. The program consists of a cognitively oriented preschool, and home visits to involve mothers in the educative process. The project has been in operation since September 1962 and is to be completed in December 1967 (Weikart, 1964; Radin & Wei-kart, 1967).

The population from which each year’s sample is selected consists of culturally deprived Negroes, diagnosed as mentally retarded. Control and experimental groups are equated for mean cultural-deprivation rating and mean Stanford-Binet IQ. Other measures include the Leiter International Performance Scale, the PPVT, the ITPA, the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (Radin Adaptation), and various achievement tests, teacher ratings, and attendance records. The data to be discussed will include only the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and achievement tests.

The program is a permissive but teacher-structured one, intended to guide the children toward increased cognitive development. Heavier emphasis is placed on verbal stimulation and interaction, dramatic play, and field trips than on social behavior and other traditional concerns of nursery schools.

The instructional program. The only requirements initially outlined for the instructional program were that it be designed to compensate for and prevent further cognitive deficits and that it operate five days a week for three hours a day. The project does not attempt to assess different methods of educational intervention. Waves 0, 1, and 2 (the pilot sample and the first two replication studies) experienced a gradually evolving program with an instructional method that can best be described as “verbal bombardment.” In this method the teacher maintains a steady stream of questions and comments to draw the child’s attention to critical aspects of his environment. This “bombardment” does not necessarily demand answers from the child. It is continued when rewarding a child for a good performance, when disciplining him, and when presenting academic material. The complexity of the language is increased as the child’s verbal ability develops. An observer in the preschool receives the impression that the teacher is acting like a middle-class mother warmly interacting with her young children.

Wave 3 and succeeding waves of the project are experiencing a somewhat different program oriented towards Piaget’s cognitive development theories. This program can be best described as an effort to firmly establish the precursors essential for the development of an adequate intellectual foundation to permit the growth of language and logical thought.

Results. The results available at this time are from Waves 0, 1, 2, and 3. Those presented here are from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and several follow-up achievement tests. Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 present the year-by-year testing data from the Stanford-Binet on each experimental and control group for a three-year period. Three patterns emerge. There is an overall pattern of increased IQ scores for all groups. Part of this pattern can be attributed to the regression phenomenon—the tendency of sample means upon repeated testing to regress toward the population mean. (See Goodenough, 1940, for preschool data on this point.)

Table 4.

Weikart: Perry Preschool Project – Wave 0 Data.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 13)	Control (n = 15)	Difference	Significance
Fall 1962 – entrance into preschool	78.4	75.0	3.4	n.s.
Spring 1963 – Completion of 1 year in preschool	91.1	82.2	8.9	.01
Spring 1964 – Completion of kindergarten	88.9	84.6	4.3	n.s.
Spring 1965 – Completion of first grade	90.7	84.6	6.1	n.s.

Table 5.

Weikart: Perry Preschool Project – Wave I Data.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 10)	Control (n = 9)	Difference	Significance
Fall 1962 – entrance into preschool	79.1	78.3	0.8	n.s
Spring 1963 – Completion of first year in preschool	90.6 (n = 8)	77.8	12.8	.05
Spring 1964 – Completion of second year in preschool	88.9	80.1	8.8	n.s.
Spring 1965 – Completion of kindergarten	90.5	83.3	7.2	n.s.

Table 6.

Weikart: Perry Preschool Project – Wave II Data.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 13)	Control (n = 14)	Difference	Significance
Fall 1963 – entrance into preschool	80.5	79.4	1.1	n.s
Spring 1964 – Completion of first year in preschool	100.9	82.9	18.0	.001
Spring 1965 – Completion of second year in preschool	94.5	79.1	15.4	.001

Table 7.

Weikart: Perry Preschool Project – Wave III Data.

Time of comparison	Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale		Difference	Significance
Time of comparison	Experimental (n = 13)	Control (n = 14)	Difference	Significance
Fall 1964 – entrance into preschool	79.6	81.0	−1.4	n.s
Spring 1965 – Completion of first year in preschool	94.4	81.2	13.2	.01

Inasmuch as one of the criteria for children in the program was an IQ score considerably below the supposed population mean, the regression phenomenon must be considered. As the groups are controlled for parent occupational levels—Goodenough’s suggestion in her criticism of the Iowa studies—the regression phenomenon is most likely not operating in this study to produce the obtained IQ score change patterns.

A second pattern is a tendency towards stability in IQ scores for the control groups who do not have school experience, followed by an immediate gain after one year of school attendance. A third pattern is a dramatic spurt, as much as 20 points, in IQ scores after one year of preschool, followed by a slight decline during the next year whether in preschool or in regular kindergarten classes.

Statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups are always obtained at the end of the first year of participation in the project. The mean increase in IQ scores for the experimental groups is 15.1 points (range 11.5 to 20.4), while the mean increase for the control groups is 3.1 points (range -0.5 to 7.2). Waves 1 and 2 are the only waves in which the experimental groups have attended two years of preschool while the control groups have remained in their disadvantaged home environments. The difference in combined experimental and control groups obtained IQ scores at the end of the second year is 12.9 points, a statistically significant difference (.001). Thus, for combined waves, the experimental groups maintain a statistically significant lead over the control groups after two years of preschool. But at the end of the kindergarten year, uncombined waves produce no significant differences between control and experimental groups.

The important findings of the project are from the first grade California Achievement Tests for Wave 0 (see Table 8). All subtests and total battery scores reach a level of statistical significance for the experimental group. The control group performs at the level traditional for the school in which they are enrolled where the class mean on national norms is the 5th percentile level. The experimental group, on the other hand, has achieved the 22nd percentile on national norms, a very important accomplishment for the experimental group and preschool!

Table 8.

Weikart: Perry Preschool Project – California Achievement Tests, Wave 0 Data.

California Achievement Tests	Mean percentile rank		Difference	Significance
California Achievement Tests	Experimental	Control	Difference	Significance
Reading	30	8	22	.05
Arithmetic	10	3	7	.05
Language skills	39	16	23	.05
TOTAL	22	5	17	.05

Programs Employing Task-Oriented Preschool Methods

Unlike the programs outlined above, projects employing task-oriented methods have not been widely instituted. While other programs seek to remedy the developmental deficiencies of disadvantaged children through adjusted or enriched natural environments, the task-oriented preschool method attempts to achieve the same goals through artificially contrived procedures. Cazden (1966) calls these “non-natural” treatments.

Most of these programs have very direct goals. There is no climbing apparatus, no doll corner with social-dramatic play, and no juice time with one cookie on normal days and two when visitors are present. There are things to be mastered and the program is directly focused on the task at hand.

Perhaps the most highly developed task-oriented curriculum is that of Bereiter (1965, 1966) at the University of Illinois.

Overview of the project. The project involves 15 disadvantaged four-year-old children in attendance at a University of Illinois preschool. The ITPA is employed as well as specially developed academic measures of the children’s progress. There are three 20-minute sessions a morning, each devoted to the direct teaching of language, reading, and arithmetic. Each of these periods is separated by 30 minutes of refreshments, singing, and a shorter period of relatively unstructured play activity. “Each subject has its own teacher, who works with each of three groups of children in turn, as in a high school” (Bereiter, 1965, p. 3). All three subjects are taught at one time, with the groups of children rotating from teacher to teacher.

Program. The curriculum is academically oriented, based on two premises: (a) Mere enrichment of experience is not enough to enable the culturally deprived child to overcome his backwardness in the skills necessary for later academic success. (b) Training in the formal, structural aspects of language will have more value in the improvement of academic aptitude than will training directed toward facilitating social communication.

The curriculum uses direct instruction to achieve the specific goal of developing the information processes necessary for thinking.

The language program is organized to help the child acquire grammatical statement patterns and an understanding of the logical organization of these patterns. Precise pronunciation, a critical requirement, receives considerable emphasis. The child’s language is regarded as being basically nonlogical and lacking in the formal properties necessary for organized thought. The teaching method for the language program derives from the techniques of modern oral methods of teaching foreign languages. “Pattern drill” is the basic technique employed.

The arithmetic and reading programs also use these methods with rules taught through the patterning of language. In arithmetic the emphasis is upon learning statement forms, such as 2 + 0 = 2 (identity). The teaching of arithmetic operations places emphasis on the formal meaning and not on concrete objects generally used as a basis for arithmetic education. Reading instruction follows the same pattern, with emphasis upon a maximum amount of experience in the explicit handling of rules and statements. In teaching, “We demanded the children’s attention by continual questioning; we demanded that they look and respond, with or without understanding” (Bereiter, 1965, p. 26). After the basic rules about words are learned, the children progress to phonic blending, etc., and then on to formal reading.

The task-oriented approach is best summarized by Bereiter in his comment, “Full participation of all children in the learning tasks is treated as a requirement to which the children must conform (much like the handwashing requirement in the conventional nursery school” (1965, p. 4).

Results. Results are not fully available at this time. Basically the project reports excellent success in obtaining the cooperation of the children, growth in general intellectual ability, and academic development.

Discussion

Data from the projects discussed in this paper lead to a number of tentative conclusions about effective educational programing for disadvantaged children.

Traditional Versus Structured Methods

The selection of adequate criteria by which to judge effective programming has always been difficult in education (Ryans, 1960). The general debate in the nursery education field has tended to be that one must choose between a cognitive and language development program structured by teacher planning and a program that promotes the socio-emotional growth of the child and is structured by the child’s expressed needs. Two sets of criteria have been proposed to assess curriculum effectiveness. For the first type of program, standardized achievement and intelligence tests have assumed prime importance. For the second type, the teacher’s qualitative assessments of the child’s social and emotional growth are used. Each position, and with some justification, sees little value in the other’s criteria of success.

It appears from the data presented in this paper that those programs which aspire to the development of improved socio-emotional adjustment by the child do obtain that goal. It appears that programs which intend to produce cognitive and language development obtain the same goal of socio-emotional growth and produce the desired intellectual development as well. The extensive Henderson study in Pennsylvania points up very clearly that preschool teachers, left unsupervised, will focus on the child’s social and emotional growth. This focus will produce no significant change in intellectual development. The Perry Project, the Deutsch projects, the Strodtbeck II groups, Dawe’s program, and others all report the same kinds of social and emotional growth and record impressive success with intervention in intellectual development. The Perry Project also finds significant differences in later academic achievement.

The conclusion is that preschool projects with the disadvantaged child must provide planned teacher action according to a specific developmental theory in which the primary goals are cognitive and language development. It seems that good social and emotional adjustment are an essential condition for such development, but focus on adjustment alone does not automatically produce the desired intellectual growth.

When Should Preschool Intervention Occur?

The timing of preschool experience has been viewed as critical. Bloom (1964) has predicted that 50% of the intelligence measured at age 17 is developed by age 4. He also suggests that a conservative estimate of the effect of extreme environments on intelligence is about 20 IQ points (1964, p. 89). Pasamanick & Knoblock (1961), however, document the occurrence of deprivation by age 3. It is reasonable to assume that:

The experiences provided by the environment to the disadvantaged child are inadequate for continued normal development after age 1.

The process of deprivation is probably insidious in that it deprives the child of key experiences necessary to establish the foundation for future development before the effects of the deprivation process are noticeable through performance tests.

From this viewpoint, all projects reported in this paper are remedial rather than preventive in that the services are offered after the deprivation has occurred. Several new projects are underway exploring the gap between age 1 and age 3. Projects by Caldwell at the University of Syracuse and Schaefer at the National Institute of Mental Health represent two of these. Data are not available from these at this time.

How Stable Are Obtained Results?

A major point to be noted in considering projects is that after the first year’s initial spurt in obtained IQ, there is a tendency for a drop the second year. This drop occurs whether the child is enrolled in a second year of a structured preschool or in a regular school. If a drop does not occur, no further rise is especially evident. Fowler (1966) attributed this second year drop to diffuse programing on the part of projects that find the phenomenon.

The basic problem may be that the education of the disadvantaged child passes through a number of stages that force different programing goals upon the teacher. The readiness to accept these stages varies greatly from teacher to teacher and project to project. For example, Riessman (1964) identified two crucial stages in teaching the disadvantaged. The first stage is simply to achieve some form of contact and communication with the child to win his attention and confidence. The second is to develop an educational program. Riessman points out that many teachers and programs feel they have succeeded when the goals of the first stage are attained and fail to move on to the second.

Looking at this point of view and the data beginning to be available from preschools, it is possible to suggest a natural evolution of preschool programs.

Stage One: Silence. During this stage the child is brought into contact with the environment of the preschool and the adults who operate the program. Just talk! Say anything! In Riessman’s terms, the goal is the establishment of rapport with the child. This goal is suspiciously like that of the traditional nursery school curriculum. No real cognitive growth occurs, since the program is not oriented toward cognition and language development. The emphasis is upon expression of self and adjustment. This stage seems to be the focus of the teachers in the Henderson project, a good many Head Start programs and other general intervention programs. These are the projects that basically registered no long-term and few short-term gains in intellectual or achievement growth. This stage is necessary and absolutely essential if the second stage is to be undertaken. Once contact has occurred, education may begin.

Stage Two: “Des god damn peaches am burnin!” This now-famous quote from Life magazine’s article on the Deutsch project illustrates the goal of the second stage. A “set” for learning, problem solving, and language growth is produced. Excitement with new things in new situations alerts the child mentally and prepares him for learning. Rapid short-term intellectual growth or an increased mental alertness results. Dawe obtained 14.2 points of IQ change in only 50 hours of instruction. Perry Project has obtained up to 20 points in eight months. The stimulation through exposure to new language and demands for critical thinking combine to produce in the child a new capacity for problem solving and alertness to the outside world. An obvious outcome is an increased ability to respond to problems presented by adults in their demand for language and attention and to handle situations such as intelligence tests more efficiently.

Stage Three: “These god damn peaches are burning!” Now alert, the child is ready to learn to participate in the full educational process that Riessman identifies. The rapport stage is fairly easy for good teachers to achieve. The development of a “set” or “alertness” for learning can be created with a well-defined and teacher-planned curriculum. The completion of the third stage, however—long-term and systematic educational programming—is what is essential but generally missing. Perry Project, Kirk’s study, Deutsch’s programs have all grappled with this problem. The girl must learn to transform her ghetto speech into educationally functional language. The “god damn” can stay because we’re broadminded, but without the correct verb form the girl maybe permanently handicapped in logical thinking.

It is the difficulty in implementing this third stage that seems to set the limits to the child’s growth potential. We simply do not know what to do in order to speed up the development process and continue the growth rate. The problem sets a practical limit of eight months on preschool intervention programs. That is as long as is necessary to complete Stage Two and place the child at a new level of functioning. It may be that Bloom (1964) is right when he suggests that a 10-point change is all that is possible during early childhood, since that is the magnitude of the change that is being obtained in most programs.

Perhaps it may be concluded that the question isn’t, “How stable are the obtained results?” but, “Why are they so stable?”

Current Directions in Program Development

There is increasing interest in the task-oriented approach to preschool education. Bereiter (1966) goes directly to the teaching of language, arithmetic, and reading. Gotkin (1966) has produced a series of activities designed to teach reading. Blatt (1966) has employed O. K. Moore’s responsive environment to introduce redacting at the preschool age. It may be, however, that these approaches are too specific to permit broad development of intellectual skills.

Many preschool teachers have turned to the early work of Montessori, McMillan, and others (see Braun, 1964). The outcome of these attempts is not known as yet, but the general observation seems to be that they are too narrow for current needs.

Basic cognitive and language skills have received increasing attention. A good example is Cazden’s (1966) summary of the key areas and problems of language development of the disadvantaged child. Deutsch and his co-workers have been involved in the development of many specific methods that have wide application. The tape recorder listening center is a good example. Smilanski (1964) has suggested many practical ideas, especially the use of social-dramatic play.

Perhaps the most promising efforts, however, are the efforts to apply broad theories of intellectual growth and development to preschool curriculum (Garrison, 1966). Sigel (1964) and Almy (1966) have suggested methods of utilizing Piaget’s concepts. Bruner (1966) has suggested specific methods and outlined immediate goals. Guilford (1966) has designed a model to facilitate the teaching of cognitive processes. These efforts, collectively and individually, may hold the solutions to the development of adequate programs to accomplish the basic tasks of preschool education.

Conclusion

It may be premature, but the debate between the so-called traditional and structured curriculum methods seems to be over. The traditional nursery school methods, so effective in fulfilling Stage 1 of the educational process, are ineffective in accomplishing the basic goals of preschool intervention with the disadvantaged child. Programs should now pass rapidly through the first two stages outlined above and arrive at Stage 3, which is where the basic problems are. Additional research in the field is needed to explore the effectiveness of various curriculum methods and devices rather than the problem of preschool versus no preschool experience. Based upon the population sample, the control groups’ growth pattern and even the pattern of the experimental group growth with known curricula are predictable. Certainly the Skeels (1966) follow-up study places the long-term results on the side of any style of intervention, especially when the control groups remain in deprived environments.

While the timing of intervention apparently can be very flexible, much work needs to be done in exploring the use of the period between age 1 and age 3 for a preventive program. The use of teachers as tutors and educational consultants to disadvantaged families with preschool children on a long-term basis might prove to be effective.

The doors to preschool education for disadvantaged children are open, and funds are available for financing such education. Teachers and researchers concerned with early child development must turn to the serious study and implementation of sound cognitive development theories if the expected results in accelerated child growth are to be obtained.

Footnotes

This paper was originally published as: Weikart, D. P. (1966). Preschool programs: Preliminary findings. Journal of Special Education, 1(2), 163–181.

Notes

References

Allegato

Preschool training program is partial success. Detroit: Detroit Free Press, 1966. 10-B.

Almy

Young children’s thinking: some aspects of Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College, Columbia, 1966.

Alpern

G. D.

The failure of a nursery school enrichment program for culturally disadvantaged children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1966, 36, 244-245.

Bayley

Comparison of mental and motor test scores for ages 1-15 months by sex, birth order, race, geographical location and education of parents. Child Development, 1965, 36, 379-411.

Bennett

E. L.

Diamond

M. C.

Krech

Rosenzweig

M. R.

Chemical and anatomical plasticity of brain. Science, 1964, 146, 610-619.

Bereiter

Osborn

Engelmann

Reidford

P. A.

An academically oriented preschool for culturally deprived children. Paper delivered at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, January, 1965.

Bereiter

Engelmann

Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Blatt

(Textbook on cultural deprivation.) Chicago: Science Research Associates (forthcom-ing.).

Bloom

B. S.

Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley, 1964.

10.

Braun

S. J.

Nursery education for disadvantaged children: an historical review. Community Research and Services Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, 1964. (Duplicated.).

11.

Bruner

J. S.

Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.

12.

Cazden

C. B.

Some implications of research on language development for preschool education. Paper delivered at Social Science Research Council Conference on Preschool Education. University of Chicago, February, 1966.

13.

Dawe

H. C.

A study of the effect of an educational program upon language development and related mental functions in young children. Journal of Experimental Education, 1942, 11, 200-209.

14.

Deutsch

Institute for Developmental Studies: Annual Report. New York: New York Medical College, 1965.

15.

Fowler

Longitudinal study of early stimulation in the emergence of cognitive processes. Paper delivered at Social Science Research Council Conference on Preschool Education, University of Chicago, February, 1966.

16.

Fuller

Values in early childhood education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1960.

17.

Garrison

Cognitive models and development in mental retardation. Monograph Supplement to

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 70, 4.

18.

Goldstein

L. S.

Evaluation of an enrichment program for socially disadvantaged children. New York: Institute for Developmental Studies, New York Medical College, 1965. (Duplicated.).

19.

Goodenough

F. L.

Maurer

K. M.

The relative potency of the nursery school and the statistical laboratory in boosting the IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1940, 41, 541-549.

20.

Gotkin

L. G.

Language lotto. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

21.

Gray

Klaus

R. A.

An experimental preschool program for culturally deprived children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 887-898.

22.

Guilford

J. P.

Intelligence: 1965 model. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 20-26.

23.

Henderson

A. S.

1964-65 annual progress report to the Ford Foundation on the preschool and primary education project. Harrisburg, Pa.: Council for Human Services, 1965.

24.

Kirk

S. A.

Early education of the mentally retarded. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1958.

25.

Krech

Rosenzweig

M. R.

Bennett

E. L.

Effects of environmental complexity and training on brain chemistry. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 509-519.

26.

Pasamanick

Knoblock

Epidemiologic studies on the complications of pregnancy and the birth process. In Caplan

(Ed.), Prevention of mental disorders in children. New York: Basic Books, 1961. Pp. 74-94.

27.

Radin

Weikart

D. P.

A home teaching program for disadvantaged preschool children. The Journal of Special Education, 1967, 2, 183-190.

28.

Riessman

Teachers of the poor: a five point plan. In Hunnicutt

C. W.

(Ed.), Urban education and cultural deprivation. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1964.

29.

Robinson

H. B.

The problems of timing in preschool education. Paper delivered at Social Science Research Council Conference on Preschool Education. University of Chicago, February, 1966.

30.

Rosenzweig

M. R.

Bennett

E. L.

Krech

Cerebral effects of environmental complexity and training among adult rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964, 57, 438-439.

31.

Ryans

D. G.

Characteristics of teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960.

32.

Scott

J. P.

Critical periods in behavioral development. Science, 1962, 138, #3544.

33.

Sears

P. S.

Dowley

E. M.

Research on teaching in the nursery school. In Gage

N. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Pp.…-864.

34.

Sigel

I. S.

The attainment of concepts. In Hoffman

M. L.

Hoffman

L. W.

(Eds.), Child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

35.

Skeels

H. M.

Adult status of two groups experiencing early intervention. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1966.

36.

Skodak

Skeels

H. M.

A final follow-up study of one hundred adopted children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1949, 75, 85-125.

37.

Smilansky

Progress report on a program to demonstrate ways of using a year of kindergarten to promote cognitive abilities. Israel Henrietta Szold Institute, 1964. (Duplicated.).

38.

Strodtbeck

F. L.

Progress report: the reading readiness nursery. The Social Psychology Laboratory, University of Chicago, 1963. (Duplicated.).

39.

Swift

J. W.

Effects of early group experience: the nursery school and day nursery. In Hoffman

M. L.

Hoffman

L. W.

(Eds.), Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, Pp. 249-288.

40.

Weikart

D. P.

Kamii

C. K.

Radin

Perry preschool progress report. Ypsilanti, Mich.: Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1964. (Duplicated.).