The Center for Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) recently released a report I wrote comparing P-3 System-Building in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The three case studies address a central question: How can states support P-3 system building at both state and local levels?
See the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report for nine themes and patterns and nine recommendations for state education agencies. There are also examples of local P-3 efforts, both urban and rural, throughout the report.
On Monday we are doing a webinar on the report for people interested in the state role in P-3 efforts. Panelists from all three states are participating.
My thanks to all the interviewees and panelists for their thoughtful insights on the work they are leading. And to my CEELO colleagues for all the helpful feedback throughout the project.
In Washington, DC for a meeting with Preschool Development Grant and Early Learning Challenge grantees. Jim Lesko of AEM discusses the rationale for Birth–3rd approaches:
- Eliminates artificial distinction between early childhood and early elementary education.
- Supports continuity, coherence, and support for children
- Promotes intentional and collaborative professional development
- Promotes cross-pollination of knowledge about development leading to sustaining efforts to support children’s learning gains
He adds that a coherent and aligned Birth–3rd system:
- Focuses on the whole child
- Provides seamless transition across components
- Includes aligned and comprehensive standards and curriculum
- Uses comparable instructional practices
- Enables communication and data-sharing across the entire assessment
- Establishes durable and long-lasting family, community, and school partnerships
- Supports PreK–3rd teachers participating in joint professional development opportunities
- Reduces the achievement gap among children in families at risk