Transition Services for Young Children With Disabilities

Abstract

The study of transition process for young children with disabilities and their families is complex. This complexity is reflected in efforts by researchers and policy makers to understand the phenomenon and determine ways to improve the transition experiences and outcomes of young children with disabilities and their families. This article synthesizes the literature from early childhood special education as well as general early childhood in an effort to exemplify the current understanding of transition processes and practices. Future directions for more integrated approaches to transition research, policy, and practice are presented.

Keywords

transition school readiness

The study of transition is complex and this complexity is reflected in efforts to understand the phenomenon as well as how to improve the transition experiences and outcomes of young children with disabilities and their families. In a 1990 article in Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, Mable Rice and Marion O’Brien wrote,

Although the problem of how to smooth a transition for a child and family is not new, there is strong evidence of a new appreciation of its significance. With the implementation of P.L. 99-457 as an impetus, there is support for investigation which contributes to the development of conceptual frameworks that have relevance for research, educational practice and training of new practitioners. As our knowledge base expands, our ability to predict successful transitions in specified circumstances will undoubtedly improve. (p. 9)

In response to PL 99-457 and other calls for attention to the transition process, more empirical research has been conducted; however, the optimistic prediction of Rice and O’Brien (1990) has not been fully realized as reflected in a statement by Rous, Hallam, Harbin, McCormick, and Jung (2007):

The last decade has seen an increase in the need for empirically-based practice, which includes those associated with successful transitions for young children and families. While there has been some limited progress in the field of identifying specific variables that affect the transition of young children with disabilities and the impact of transition practices on child outcomes, the literature has focused more on effective transition procedures and practices than on the complex interactions across multiple levels of the system (provider, program, community, state) and how these interactions influence child outcomes both during and after the transition. (p. 144)

These quotes demonstrate the long-standing interest in exploring and identifying evidence-based practice (EBP) to support the transition process for young children with disabilities and their families. Early work in the area of transition for children with disabilities was guided by a definition proposed by Rice and O’Brien (1990), which stated that “points of change in services and personnel who coordinate and provide services” (p. 2). Although this definition holds true today, there have been numerous changes in the context of transition planning that have impacted research and practice. The first is the age at which the transition occurs. The transition to public school kindergarten was the target for much of the early research (e.g., Vincent et al., 1980). With the 1986 passage of PL 99-457, amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA; now Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]), the establishment of early intervention programs for infants and toddlers and early childhood special education services for preschoolers with disabilities changed the focus to include the transition across birth to age 5.

Second, there has been growth in the number of services and supports available to young children, specifically children from vulnerable populations (e.g., low income, at risk). For infants and toddlers, Early Head Start and Home Visitation Programs (i.e., Healthy Families America, Parents as Teachers) have increased across states (K. Johnson, 2009). For preschool children, public schools have expanded services for children considered at risk (Barnett et al., 2010). This growth in programs and services has not only provided more opportunities for inclusion of young children with disabilities but has also increased the number of transitions children and families must navigate daily or weekly and as the child ages in and out of programs.

Finally, numerous initiatives, state and federal policies, and research efforts have addressed the importance of supporting children as they enter school (Barnett, Hustedt, Friedman, Boyd, & Ainsworth, 2007). One of the most significant was the 1998 delineation of dimensions of child readiness for school by the National Education Goals Panel, which emphasized support for the transition process (Goals, 2000). More recently is an emphasis on specific child outcomes as a result of early intervention and early childhood special education services and the increased need for coordination and collaboration across those providing early childhood services to support more positive outcomes for children (Harbin, Rous, & McLean, 2005).

Research Supporting Transition Services

The current research in transition services emerges from the special education and early childhood literature, which have taken somewhat divergent research approaches. Both will be presented in this article as they contribute equally to what we know about planning for and enhancing transition experiences of young children and their families.

Research for Children With Disabilities

Much of the early research in the area of transition was descriptive in nature (Rosenkoetter et al., 2009) and focused on specific skills children with disabilities needed to function effectively in kindergarten and/or first grade settings (e.g., Kemp & Carter, 2000; Rule, Fiechtel, & Innocenti, 1990) or on the experiences of families during transition (e.g., Hanline & Halvorsen, 1989; T. E. Johnson, Chandler, Kerns, & Fowler, 1986). Through this early research, a picture emerged of transition as a potentially stressful event for families of children with disabilities and for the need to address the social, communication, and adaptive skills of children during transition for a successful adjustment in the next environment. These findings led to the development of assessments and curricula associated with promoting children’s development in these areas to promote effective transitions (Rous & Hallam, 2006).

More recent research has focused on the identification of specific practices used by teachers to support the transition of children into and out of programs. Practices have most commonly been categorized into two basic types: high-intensity practices (e.g., individualized) and low-intensity practices (e.g., whole class or large group; Daley, Monk, & Carlson, 2011; Pianta, Cox, Taylor, & Early, 1999; Rous, Hallam, McCormick, & Cox, 2010). Practices most commonly reported by teachers to support the transition into kindergarten and first grade included low-intensity activities such as talking with parents before school starts, open houses, and sending information home to parents (Early, Pianta, Taylor, & Cox, 2001). Likewise, teachers reported they did not use transition practices specific to children with special needs; rather, they used low-intensity practices such as those for the class as a whole (Daley et al., 2011; La Paro, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). The use of transition practices to support children as they enter preschool varied from those of kindergarten teachers in that both high- and low-intensity practices were reported (Rous et al., 2010). Specifically, preschool teachers more commonly reported practices that occurred prior to the start of the school year, rather than after school starts. The number of practices used to support transition also increased when the classroom included children with disabilities.

An area of emphasis in the transition literature for children with disabilities is a focus on collaboration and coordination across multiple agencies. Beginning in the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs funded numerous projects to support research and training related to transition. These projects produced a number of guidelines, products, and procedures to support interagency agreements (e.g., Wischnowski, Fowler, & McCollum, 2000); transition planning guides (e.g., Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Fowler, 1994); and strategies to support collaborative planning (e.g., Rous, Hemmeter, & Schuster, 1999). However, specific research on the role of interagency collaboration on successful transition experiences remains limited.

Early Childhood Research

Much of what we know about transition experiences is derived from research on the transition of children who are typically developing or those who are at risk (e.g., eligible for some type of subsidized preschool such as Head Start or public preschool). In particular, research in general early education has emphasized the importance of formal school entry and its subsequent impact on later academic trajectories (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Greenberg, Lengua, Coie, & Pinderhughes, 1999). In this line of research, the focus has primarily been on the role of ecological factors (e.g., family factors, income level, parental involvement) on student achievement in the early grades (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1999). Furthermore, research on entry to school has noted the disparity in children’s transition experiences, with low-income children and children of color least likely to receive the support to assist in the transition to school (Pianta et al., 1999; Rous et al., 2010). Many of these studies have also focused on the concept of school readiness, with an acknowledgment that social skills (developmental and communication) are often viewed by teachers and school principals as more critical to successful transitions to school than academic skills (e.g., Wesley & Buysse, 2003). However, these studies have most often focused on the transition to kindergarten or first grade, largely at the exclusion of transition services for children as they enter preschool.

Research findings to date indicate a relationship between children’s successful adjustment to school and outcomes in the areas of cognition and literacy, adaptive skills (e.g., self-direction, work habits, initiative), and social adjustment. Through this line of research, we have learned the role high-quality environments and use of developmentally appropriate practice play on children’s successful adjustment to kindergarten classrooms and positive academic and social outcomes (e.g., Huffman & Speer, 2000; Marcon, 2002). Teacher/child relationships are associated with better cognitive outcomes when the relationship can be described as positive and close (e.g., Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005). Finally, a close match between the sending and receiving environments across which children are transitioning (e.g., curriculum, instructional strategies) supports a more successful adjustment for typically developing children and those with special needs (e.g., Chun, 2003; Kemp, 2003; LeAger & Shapiro, 1995). The potential for discontinuity between preschool and kindergarten experiences has been illuminated as a particular area of need (Love, Logue, Trudeau, & Thayer, 1992).

In an effort to address this discontinuity, the study of transition practices as a mechanism for assisting children and families before and after the transition emerged and has led to studies linking specific transition practices to outcomes. This line of research suggests that transition practices may support families’ adjustment to the new school environment as well as promote child academic and behavioral outcomes (Lo Casale-Crouch, Mashburn, Downer, & Pianta, 2008; Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005).

The findings underscore the need for further study of specific transition practices as they relate to child and family adjustment to new environments.

Current Issues and Recommendations for Future Research

Although transition has been a topic of focus in early childhood for many years, it remains an area of need in research and practice. Indeed, with the growing number of early care and education opportunities for young children across the United States, children are transitioning more frequently between and among programs than ever before. Conceptually, four overarching issues frame our discussion of the key issues currently facing the field and lead to recommendations for future research in the area of early childhood transition.

Adopting a Context-Oriented Approach to the Practice and Study of Transition

For typically developing children, much of the early research in transition used a child-centered approach focused on the degree to which children adapt to and function in new settings and the impact on academic achievement (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988). Other early research focused on child and family factors and the impact on school success, again as measured by academic achievement (e.g., Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997). For children with disabilities, much of the early research focused on collaboration across programs and staff (e.g., Bruder & Bologna, 1993) or family experiences during the transition process (e.g., Hanson et al., 2000). Across both fields, attempts have been made to identify specific practices in use by teachers (Early et al., 2001; Rous et al., 2010) and how practices impact children’s academic success after transition (Schulting et al., 2005).

In reality, the transition process represents a complex phenomenon often represented in the literature within an ecological framework (e.g., Early et al., 2001; Rous et al., 2007). Within this framework, the context of the transition plays a major role in the supports provided as well as potential barriers encountered by children, families, and providers. In this sense, context includes program factors (e.g., transition procedures, relationship between programs and teachers), classroom or teacher characteristics (e.g., program location, classroom climate, teacher–child relationship), family characteristics (e.g., family efficacy, support systems), and child characteristics (e.g., ability level, age at transition, friendships). Understanding critical factors associated with the transition process helps frame a more contextualized approach to transition—one that moves beyond a child-centered approach (Rosenkoetter et al., 2009). To move the field forward and augment research and theory, more attention is needed on these ecological features of transition as a way to improve the overall process.

When using a more contextualized approach, desired and measurable outcomes beyond academic success of children should be considered, particularly for children with disabilities. For this population, especially children with more significant needs, a successful adjustment to school may be better measured by a child’s adaptation to classroom culture and structure and/or his or her engagement in the physical and social aspects of a new setting (Rous et al., 2007). This adaptation may be attributed to other contextual factors, such as the degree of communication between the sending and receiving providers or the accommodations and supports used in the preschool environment to support the child’s participation in classroom routines and activities. Furthermore, a context-centered approach illuminates a range of key factors that can contribute to the transition process which have to date not been adequately studied (e.g., ethnicity, neighborhood, timing of eligibility determination, and organizational climate).

The transition literature addresses the role of collaboration, coordination, and relationships as critical to supporting successful transition experiences. For children with disabilities, the focus has been on regulated process and relationships between programs (e.g., Malone & Gallagher, 2008; Rous et al., 1999), whereas early childhood research has focused on personal relationships between staff across programs (e.g., Lo Casale-Crouch et al., 2008), family and staff (e.g., Pianta, Kraft-Sayre, Rimm-Kaufman, Gercke, & Higgins, 2001), and teacher and child (e.g., Mantzicopoulos, 2005). Future research for children with special needs should address the communication and relationships between staff members, families and program staff, and teacher and child during transition periods. However, it should be noted that recruiting families for research during transition periods can be particularly challenging due to additional stress families may experience as they prepare for a change in services, especially for children with more significant disabilities (McCormick et al., 2011).

Finally, the context of transition is time-sensitive and, to date, inadequate empirical attention has been given to understanding the timing of transition practices generally and in relation to the needs of children and family. The temporal nature of transition makes it difficult to attribute specific practices to actual adjustment outcomes and can be confounded by other factors present in the environment or the teacher (Daley et al., 2011). An ecological lens provides a more comprehensive view of the transition process that situates the experiences of children and families within classrooms, programs, neighborhoods, and communities. Future studies should include mixed-method approaches to capture the ecology of transition experiences with attention to temporal features of transition (e.g., timing of transition efforts at sending and receiving entities) and linkage between transition experiences and experiences within the broader early education context (e.g., difference in implementing home visit practices during times of transition in relation to continuous home visiting experiences over the course of a program year). In addition, more contextual analysis of transition practices can be afforded using nested study designs to more accurately link context to practices and outcomes.

Broadening Our Attention to the Multiple Transitions Experienced by Children and Families

Although much of the current research focuses on transition to formal schooling—with a growing body of literature on transition out of early intervention at age 3—young children actually experience a multitude of transitions before they enter school. Transition has long been described as representing two types of change in services or programs: vertical and horizontal (Kagan, 1992). Vertical transitions represent changes over time (early intervention to preschool) whereas horizontal transitions represent changes within a fixed period of time (e.g., a day or week). Therefore “transition” can represent a broad range of changes across programs during a day or over time and/or within programs as children move from classroom to classroom.

The population served and the nature of the service delivery system in early childhood contributes to “transition problems.” Most publicly funded services for young children focus on vulnerable populations, most often children with disabilities and those considered at risk. Therefore, specific characteristics of this population of children should be considered as it impacts transition services. For example, the United States has one of the highest rates of mobility (Titus, 2007), and research in education has found that mobility rates are often related to economic status (Smith, Fien, & Paine, 2008). For the population of children who are from low-income families, this may result in navigating multiple transitions across programs within a short amount of time as families move between communities. Children with disabilities and who are at risk are also likely to be served by a diverse number of agencies and programs at any given time (educational, health, social services) requiring multiple transitions across a day, week, or month.

The number of children in the United States born prematurely declined in 2008, but remains at 12.8% of births whereas the percentage of low birth-weight remained consistent (8.2%; Hamilton, Martin, & Ventura, 2010). Families of these children have been reported to require extensive support as they transition from hospital to home (Bruder & Cole, 1991). Yet this transition point has received little attention in the literature, an important oversight given the link between preterm (e.g., Miles & Holditch-Davis, 1997) and very low birth-weight (Singer, Salvator, Shenyang, Lilien, & Baley, 1999) to parental stress as well as participation in early intervention services (Hebbeler et al., 2007).

Transition within programs has received very little empirical attention. In particular, as children with disabilities are served in more community-based settings (e.g., child care, Head Start), issues such as staff turnover cause frequent caregiver transitions and frequent classroom changes within the same program, all of which have the potential to negatively impact children and families. The instability of the child care workforce has been consistently documented (Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber, & Howes, 2001) and studies have linked frequent staff turnover to lower levels of program quality and less responsive teacher–child interactions (Cassidy, Lower, Kintner-Duffy, Hegde, & Shim, 2011; Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abott-Shim, 2000). More attention is needed for within program transitions and their potential impact on the adjustment and well-being of young children with disabilities.

Various terms have been used to describe changes in programs, settings, and services (e.g., transition, continuity, school readiness). These various terms make it difficult to identify the current state of research and practice related to the transition experience. That said, there are clearly gaps in the empirical literature around specific transition points young children and families navigate in the years before formal schooling begins. These include the vertical transition points of hospital to home and the entry into preschool programs. More study and practice attention is needed regarding horizontal transition points, including movement between programs and services within the same day or week (e.g., dual enrollment) and between classrooms within the same program/agency. Research has also focused more specifically on the transition as defined by “entry” into programs versus “exit” out of programs.

Provision of Transition Supports to All Young Children and Their Families

A major issue in the area of transition is equal access to transition services for all children with and without disabilities. Research around the transition to kindergarten has demonstrated that although transition supports and services are most beneficial to children from vulnerable populations (i.e., those with disabilities and from economically disadvantaged families) they are the least likely to receive these services (Early et al., 2001; Schulting et al., 2005). These findings are disconcerting given the emphasis on transition planning and services in the Head Start Performance Standards (for all children enrolled) and IDEA regulations (for children with disabilities). However, IDEA regulations address the transition of children only at age 3, as they transition out of early intervention services into preschool special education services, with no comparable regulations to support the transition to kindergarten. However, Head Start program requirements address the transition of children into and out of Early Head Start and Head Start, specifically related to record transfer, communication between programs and staff, individualized child-focused meetings with the family, and training across agencies and programs to support transition efforts (45 CFR 1308).

The lack of a more generalized infrastructure for supporting transition planning and practices for children birth through age 8 and their families is a barrier to ensuring adequate transition supports to all young children and their families. Efforts to create cross-sector frameworks for transition planning and implementation that span birth through primary services would ensure that current federal requirements are situated in a broader network of supports to children and families and increase the likelihood all families receive assistance during important transition times during their child’s early years. Research efforts to identify successful policy efforts in states as well as strategies to support cross-sector collaboration are needed to help identify critical components of this infrastructure and cross-sector frameworks. This includes a focus on identifying key regulatory supports for an infrastructure that can take into consideration and be responsive to state and local contexts.

Study and Implementation of Transition Practices

Identifying specific transition practices that can be tailored to meet the diverse needs of families and children is needed. As described above, transition planning requires sensitivity to the time and context of the transition process. Although many strategies identified in the literature allude to “individualized planning” for each child and family, the practices most often identified lack specificity in how they can be tailored to the individual needs of children and families while taking into consideration the time and resources needed by the teacher, provider, or program. In addition, teasing out the “preparation” side of the transition practices equation from the “adjustment” side would benefit the field. One strategy for addressing this issue is to differentiate transition practices from strategies used to implement the practice (Rous, 2008). Using this framework, practices represent global constructs under which specific “strategies” can be selected to support implementation of the practice (Figure 1). This distinction allows providers, teachers, and programs to support continuity of transition planning within and across programs, while individualizing specific strategies based on child, family, and program context.

Figure 1.

Example transition practice and strategies

Recommended practices and legal requirements within IDEA require advance planning for the transition process. The focus of practices for these advanced planning efforts typically involves administrative functions and cross-agency communication and collaboration. However, the current climate of accountability is more focused on curriculum and student outcomes and less on relationships, including those between teachers and families and between agencies. Temporal issues related to transition planning can also be problematic as programs and providers identify specific transition supports to implement. Individualized transition planning at the child and family level is often time bound based on what can be done within the last few weeks in a program to get a child and family “ready” for a new environment or the first few weeks of school to help a child “adjust” to a new setting. This is especially true when children participate in a program for a relatively short period of time. For example, data collected through the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS) indicate that children with developmental delays and those with speech or communication concerns are more likely to enter early intervention services at age 2 or older (Hebbeler et al., 2007) and must transition out of the program by age 3.

Often, the timing of the practice is the only thing that distinguishes it as supporting the child’s “transition” versus a general intervention or classroom strategy. Many typical intervention or classroom strategies can be repurposed to support a child’s transition. For example, home visiting is a common strategy for supporting family engagement in their child’s educational process. Based on the timing of the home visit, it can also be considered a transition support focused on preparing the family and child to exit a program or supporting a family and child as they enter and adjust to a new program. Providing accommodations to support a child’s engagement in classroom routines can be considered a transition support at the beginning of the school year if the focus is on helping the child engage in new routines/activities in the class.

Desired outcomes for successful transitions across diverse transition points for children and families need to be articulated beyond the traditional outcome of academic achievement (Daley et al., 2011; Rous et al., 2007). Outcomes should take into account various ways in which the transition experience is defined across populations of children and families. This includes outcomes that address the concepts of horizontal and vertical transitions as well as the process of preparing children for a new environment and supporting children in their adjustment to the environment after the transition. Outcomes should take into account parental and program staff perceptions of what qualifies as “success” as these might differ considerably.

Once articulated, research efforts can focus more specifically on the impact individual transition practices and strategies have on outcomes. Specific research questions should include (a) agreement between families and professionals on practices implemented, (b) relationship between individual or groups of practices on children’s preparation and adjustment to new settings, and (c) consideration of which practices work for which children, in what context, and under what conditions.

Research and practice in the area of transition has largely been divided between the fields of early childhood and early childhood special education. With the increasing emphasis on cross-sector collaboration as evidenced by national initiatives such as the Early Learning Challenge Fund (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), transition is an area that requires a blend of approaches currently employed across the two fields. Creating a national research agenda can support research to help answer questions based on the diverse population of children currently served through publicly funded programs.

Successful transitions are part of the delivery of high-quality early education services for young children with disabilities and their families. The study of the transition process and the implementation of transition practices can be strengthened by integrating transition into a broader framework of planning and by implementing seamless services for young children, birth through formal school entry.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexander

K. L.

Entwisle

D. R.

(1988). Achievement in the first two years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53, 1–57.

Barnett

W. S.

Epstein

D. J.

Carolan

M. E.

Fitzgerald

Ackerman

D. J.

Friedman

A. H.

(2010). The state of preschool: 2010 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Barnett

W. S.

Hustedt

J. T.

Friedman

A. H.

Boyd

J. S.

Ainsworth

(2007). The state of preschool: 2007 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Brooks-Gunn

Duncan

Aber

J. L.

(Eds.). (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Vol. 1. Context and consequences for children; Vol. 2. Policy implications in studying neighborhoods. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bruder

M. B.

Bologna

(1993). Collaboration and service coordination for effective early intervention. In Brown

Thurman

S. K.

Pearl

L. F.

(Eds.), Family-centered early intervention with infants and toddlers: Interdisciplinary cross-disciplinary approaches (pp. 103–127). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Cassidy

D. J.

Lower

J. K.

Kintner-Duffy

D. L.

Hegde

A. V.

Shim

(2011). The day-to-day reality of teacher turnover in preschool classrooms: An analysis of classroom context and teacher, director, and parent perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25, 1–23.

Chun

(2003). A study of children’s difficulties in transition to school in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 83–96.

Daley

T. C.

Monk

Carlson

(2011). A national study of kindergarten transition practices for children with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 409–419. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.00110.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.001

Early

D. M.

Pianta

R. C.

Taylor

L. C.

Cox

M. J.

(2001). Transition practices: Findings from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 199–206.

10.

Entwisle

D. R.

Alexander

K. L.

(1998). Facilitating the transition to first grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting it. Elementary School Journal, 98, 351–364.

11.

Goals. (2000). Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, §108 Stat. 125 (1994).

12.

Greenberg

M. T.

Lengua

L. J.

Coie

Pinderhughes

E. E.

(1999). Predicting developmental outcomes at school entry using a multiple-risk model: Four American communities. Developmental Psychology, 35, 403–417.

13.

Hamilton

B. E.

Martin

J. A.

Ventura

S. J.

(2010). Births: Preliminary data for 2008 (National vital statistics reports; Vol. 58, No. 16). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

14.

Hanline

M. F.

Halvorsen

(1989). Parent perceptions of the integration transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55, 487–492.

15.

Hanson

M. J.

Beckman

P. J.

Horn

Marquart

Sandall

S. R.

Greig

Brennan

(2000). Entering preschool: Family and professional experiences in this transition process. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 279–293.

16.

Harbin

Rous

McLean

(2005). Feature article: Issues in designing state accountability systems. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 137–164.

17.

Hebbeler

Spiker

Bailey

Scarborough

Mallik

Simeonsson

. . . Nelson

(2007). Early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: Participants, services and outcomes (Final Report of the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study [NEILS]). Retrieved from http://www.sri.com/neils/

18.

Huffman

L. R.

Speer

P. W.

(2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 167–184.

19.

Johnson

(2009). State-based home visiting: Strengthening programs through state leadership. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.

20.

Johnson

T. E.

Chandler

L. K.

Kerns

G. M.

Fowler

S. A.

(1986).What are parents saying about family involvement in school transitions? A retrospective transition interview. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 11(1), 10–17.

21.

Kagan

S. L.

(1992). The strategic importance of linkages and the transition between early childhood programs and early elementary school. In Sticking together: Strengthening linkages and the transition between early childhood education and early elementary school (summary of a National Policy Forum) (pp. 7–11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

22.

Kemp

(2003). Investigating the transition of young children with intellectual disabilities into mainstream classes: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 50, 403–431.

23.

Kemp

Carter

(2000). Demonstration of classroom survival skills in kindergarten: A five-year transition study of children with intellectual disabilities. Educational Psychology, 20, 393–411.

24.

La Paro

Pianta

R. C.

Cox

(2000). Teachers’ reported transition practices for children transitioning into kindergarten and first grade. Exceptional Children, 67, 7–20.

25.

LeAger

Shapiro

(1995). Template matching as a strategy for assessment of and intervention for preschool students with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2, 187–218.

26.

Lo Casale-Crouch

Mashburn

A. J.

Downer

J. T.

Pianta

R. C.

(2008). Pre-kindergarten teachers’ use of transition practices and children’s adjustment to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 124–139.

27.

Love

J. M.

Logue

M. E.

Trudeau

J. V.

Thayer

(1992). Transitions to kindergarten in American schools: Final report of the national transition study. Hampton, NH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED344693)

28.

Malone

D. G.

Gallagher

P. A.

(2008). Transition to preschool programs for young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 341–356.

29.

Mantzicopoulos

(2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425–442.

30.

Marcon

R. A.

(2002). Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4, 26.

31.

McCormick

Nowak

Cox

Stricklin

Rosenkoetter

Hallam

. . . Gooden

(2011). Multi-state studies of transition during the early childhood years for young children with disabilities and their families (Technical Report No. 7). Lexington: University of Kentucky, Human Development Institute, National Early Childhood Transition Center. Retrieved from http://www.hdi.uky.edu/NECTC/Home.aspx

32.

Miles

M. S.

Holditch-Davis

(1997). Parenting the prematurely born child: Pathways of influence. Seminars in Perinatology, 21, 254–266.

33.

Phillips

Mekos

Scarr

McCartney

Abott-Shim

(2000). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 475–496.

34.

Pianta

R. C.

Cox

M. J.

Taylor

Early

(1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to the transition to school: Results of a national survey. Elementary School Journal, 100, 71–86.

35.

Pianta

R. C.

Kraft-Sayre

Rimm-Kaufman

Gercke

Higgins

(2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: The National Center for Early Development and Learning’s kindergarten transition intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 117–132.

36.

Rice

M. L.

O’Brien

(1990). Transitions: Times of change and accommodation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 1–14.

37.

Rosenkoetter

S. E.

Hains

A. H.

Fowler

S. A.

(1994). Bridging early services for children with special needs and their families: A practical guide for transition planning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

38.

Rosenkoetter

Schroeder

Rous

Hains

Shaw

McCormick

(2009). A review of research in early childhood transition: Child and family studies (Technical Report No. 5). Lexington: University of Kentucky, Human Development Institute, National Early Childhood Transition Center.

39.

Rous

(2008, April). Recommended transition practices for young children and families: Results from a national validation survey (Technical Report No. 3). Lexington: University of Kentucky, Human Development Institute, National Early Childhood Transition Center.

40.

Rous

Hallam

(2006). Tools for transition in early childhood: A step-by-step guide for agencies, teachers, and families. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

41.

Rous

Hallam

Harbin

McCormick

Jung

(2007). The transition process for young children with disabilities: A conceptual framework. Infants & Young Children, 20, 135–148.

42.

Rous

Hallam

McCormick

Cox

(2010). Practices that support the transition to public preschool programs: Results from a national survey. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 17–32.

43.

Rous

Hemmeter

M. L.

Schuster

(1999). Evaluating the impact of the STEPS model on development of community-wide transition systems. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 38–50.

44.

Rule

Fiechtel

Innocenti

(1990). Preparation for transition to mainstreamed post-preschool environments: Development of a survival skills curriculum. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 78–90.

45.

Schulting

A. B.

Malone

P. S.

Dodge

K. A.

(2005). The effects of school-based kindergarten transition practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41, 860–871.

46.

Silver

Measelle

Armstrong

Essex

(2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher-child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 39–60.

47.

Singer

L. T.

Salvator

Shenyang

Lilien

Baley

(1999). Maternal psychological distress and parenting stress after the birth of a very low-birth-weight infant. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 799–805.

48.

Smith

Fien

Paine

(2008). When mobility disrupts learning. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 59–63.

49.

Titus

(2007). Strategies and resources for enhancing the achievement of mobile students. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 91, 81–97.

50.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The early learning challenge fund: Results-oriented, standards reform of state early learning programs. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/print/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/elcf-factsheet.html

51.

Vincent

L. J.

Salisbury

C. L.

Walter

Brown

Gruenewald

Power

(1980). Program evaluation and curricular development in early childhood/special education: Criteria of the next environment. In Sailor

Wilcox

Brown

(Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 303–328). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

52.

Wesley

P. W.

Buysse

(2003). Making meaning of school readiness in schools and communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 351–375.

53.

Whitebook

Sakai

Gerber

Howes

(2001). Then and now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994–2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed452984).

54.

Wischnowski

M. W.

Fowler

S. A.

McCollum

J. A

(2000). Supports and barriers to writing an interagency agreement on the preschool transition. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 294–307.