Reply to Lonigan Commentary

dc.creator	Rebecca A. Marcon
dc.date	2003-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-08-12T11:16:38Z
dc.date.available	2015-08-12T11:16:38Z
dc.identifier	1524-5039
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/a30e7307a72f403c943cc55338a3603e
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/25786
dc.description	Responding to Lonigan's commentary on her preschool models study, Marcon clarifies points from the original article and provides findings from a reexamination of the data to answer Lonigan's questions. The response first addresses the issue of retention, reiterating the possible reasons for the lower retention of students in an academically directed (AD) preschool and focusing on one: family income influences on early grade retention. It is noted that lower-income children were more likely than higher-income children to have been retained prior to third grade, and none of the Head Start children had been enrolled in an AD model preschool. Stating the rationale for analyzing data by year in school rather than by grade, thus accounting for grades repeated, the commentary points out that selection of report card grades as an outcome measure might be seen as favoring the AD approach in a school system where grades reflect number of objectives mastered in the competency-based curriculum. Lonigan's suggestions for how to deal with retained children in a longitudinal analysis prompted a reexamination of the data. The response then highlights several conclusions that stand out in the reexamination. First, the impact of the CI model on children's grades was not dependent on Head Start classrooms. Second, the decline in grades associated with the AD model was more evident among children who had never been retained. Significant correlations between report cards and scores on the standardized achievement test battery administered for the first time in third grade were found in all subject areas as well as between children's GPA and total test battery score; thus report card grades were reasonable outcomes to evaluate as an indicator of children's academic abilities. Finally, the response revisits the distinctions between different approaches, pointing out that the preschool models contrasted in the study were empirically derived and reflect a continuum of experiences not an either/or categorization. The response concludes by pointing out that although the study does not provide "the answer" to questions concerning the impact of different approaches, it does help in understanding what facilitates or possibly hinders children's progress through school by demonstrating difficulties that graduates of AD preschools encounter.
dc.language	English
dc.language	Chinese
dc.language	Spanish
dc.publisher	ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Educati
dc.relation	http://www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n1/marcon.html
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1524-5039
dc.source	Early Childhood Research & Practice, Vol 5, Iss 1 (2003)
dc.subject	Academic Achievement
dc.subject	Elementary School Students
dc.subject	Outcomes of Education
dc.subject	Preschool Curriculum
dc.subject	Preschool Education
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Reply to Lonigan Commentary
dc.type	article