The effects of a comprehensive early literacy project on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills
EARLY LITERACY PROGRAM 2
Professor Sample
Grant Proposal: Early Literacy Program
The current proposal is written for the inception of the Child Early Literacy Program (CELP). There are three parts to the proposal. Part I is the needs statement, goals, and objectives for CELP in which the need for a literacy program is addressed and a discussion of how the ….. aligns with the program. Part II will review the methodology and evaluation plan. This section will specifically address who the students are that are eligible to participate, the resources needed for the program, and how the students will be assessed for an evidence based approach to the literacy program. Part III focuses on the budget with a budget narrative to explain the narrative and a full sustainability plan will follow.
Part 1: Need Statement, Goals, and Objectives
Part 1 of the grant proposal will discuss a needs statement, goals, and objectives. The needs statement will encompass information regarding; early literacy, issues in poor literacy, socioeconomic status and linguistic differences as a variable in literacy, early intervention and prevention needs, and the current early literacy program called Child Early Literacy Program (CELP). The funder information, W.K. Kellogg Foundation [WKKF] will be identified and aligned with the needs statement. Also, the main goal of ELP is identified as well as measurable objectives to meet this goal.
Needs Statement
Early literacy, and the associated skills with them, are necessary for a child’s future academic success (Hilbert & Eis, 2014). Literacy skills should be worked on from birth by speaking regularly to a child and engaging them in their environment (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008). However, the pre-school years bring new literacy skills that need to be taught for the best chance in learning how to read successful and for future literacy success. These skills include; phonological awareness, letter knowledge, print awareness, vocabulary, and word manipulation (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008; Hilbert & Eis, 2014). Each of these areas have a reflection and interaction with the other areas (Cetin & Katranci, 2018). In other words, if a child’s reading skills improve then so will the child’s vocabulary or if a child’s phonological awareness improves then so will the child’s reading. The development of literacy starts with concepts early in life and can continue to grow with daily experiences and interactions with the environment.
Issues in early literacy, such as in preschool and kindergarten, are related to these children failing to develop literacy skills moving forward. Failing to do so at an early age can signify deficits in reading through elementary school with the gap in achievement continuing to widen from those children that have developed solid literacy skills (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008). Also, children that have poor early literacy when beginning kindergarten rarely catch up. If intervention is not used during the early childhood years, through second grade, then most of the children, starting in fourth grade, will continue to have literacy issues.
Literacy is affected by numerous variables in a child’s life (Lee & Otaiba, 2014). It is a pressing issue in the educational system as so many children face literacy issues due to their home environment and a lack of partnership between the home and school environment. Socio-economic status (SES) is one very significant area that seems to be a variable in the achievement gap for students. Children from low-incomed families may acquire language at a slower pace (Xu, Chin, & Reed, 2014). Lower income can predict lowered entry-level literacy skills, delayed letter and phonological recognition, and overall a greater risk for reading difficulties (Pears et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014). In fact, children from low-income families show significant differences in learning to read and write in kindergarten because of a lack of knowledge of letter, phonetics, and vocabulary (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008). There are many reasons for this, however limited English proficiency coupled with low-income is often seen. This can increase the sufficient early literacy experiences needed in the home as well as less support for early literacy altogether. Another prominent reason that there is a lack of early literacy may be the experiences of the child. Children from low-income household are more likely to give a child exposure to reading materials and resources as well as additional teaching in literacy areas (Lee & Otaiba, 2014). The research has shown that even in the grade of kindergarten that students showed a significant lower performance in alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and spelling due to high poverty household. Sadly, the gap that begins here will continue to widen and can result in students that continue to fall behind their peers and can even increase the child’s chance of having reading difficulties. This difficulty can, in turn, relate to other areas of academic and social achievement that can relate to later lowered rates of educational and occupational achievement (Pears et al., 2014). Furthermore, mental health disparities can rise as well as drug use, lack of motivation in school, and delinquency.
The outcomes for poor early literacy require interventions to ensure both literacy, but also school readiness for young children (Pears et al., 2014). Over the last decade the topic of early intervention to promote early literacy has continued. However, there is a lack of funding and some states and districts are spending less money in this particular area. In addition, children from a low-income household tend to move more often making this an additional issue. It is shown, though, that if these children receive even some intervention that the results are still positive and can still be long lasting. This shift towards an emphasis on prevention and early intervention is becoming more prevalent. High-quality intervention can not only reduce the number of children that are not ready for school, but they will also start school with higher literacy and will be prepared for the expectations and work in school.
The CELP is the current program for this grant. CELP is focused on the literacy of children in early childhood, and particularly for children at Dellview Elementary grades 3-year old program, 4-year old program, kindergarten, first, and second grade (overall ages 3-8) (North East Independent School District [NEISD], 2019). The community, where the school is located, is an area that is primarily Hispanic, as 88.6 percent of the study body, and linguistically both English and Spanish. Some of these families may not speak English or do not speak it at home. More importantly, the school is a Title 1 school which means that the school has a high rate of children from low-incomed homes and, therefore, they are given financial assistance (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Extra support may not be emphasized at home where literacy may not be valued, where parents may not speak English, have their own literacy incompetency, lack the skills to continue teaching at home, the home can be a single-parent family, or both parents work making an emphasis on literacy a problem. There is an after-school program at this school that works on a grant already (grant specifics have not been shared with me). However, it has a limited focus on homework and focuses on enriching activities for the children. The after-school program is only for kindergarten through fifth grade, not for the younger children. Also, the grant only covers about 1 in 5 children that attend the school. This means that there is a still a significant number of students that may not be receiving literacy intervention.
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation WKKF provides grant support across the United States (as well as Mexico and Haiti) to support vulnerable children in their individual success, but also as contributors to their community. It is one of the largest private foundations that awards grant money. The money provided by this grant should signify the well-being of the child and it will promote social change by doing so. WKKF will provide funding for an early literacy program as their interest in education, health, and racial equity are largely an emphasis for the well-being of children. More specifically, educated kids, is an area identified by WKKF that states that every child deserves a fair chance at school and life. Education is defined as; home education, child care, preschool, and kindergarten through third grade. The ELP will be located at school that consists of both preschool age through 8 years old. The WKKF also states that the development of the child, through age 8, and the child’s education is the best way to reach a child to obtain the child’s full potential. Furthermore, WKKF addresses barriers to education including both race and income and how this can inhibit a child’s education. Overall, WKKF wants to eliminate these barriers, such as low-income and low levels of literacy, to break the cycle of poverty.
Goals
The main goal for Dellview Elementary is to improve the literacy scores for children ages 3 – 8. Please see below for the three objectives on how the goal will be reached and an evaluation of each objective given.
Objective 1. 100 children will be accepted into the program and each will participate in CELP 2-3 days a week for 10-30 minutes each time,
Evaluation 1. Each teacher will keep a log on the frequency number of days a child participates each week and the length of time.
Objective 2. To improve on the three literacy scores of; print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness.
Evaluation 2. Print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness will be scored at the beginning of the year (pre-test) and at the end of the year (post-test).
Objective 3. Parents will be partnered with to complete at-home activities each week to improve literacy scores.
Evaluation 3. Parents will need to sign a weekly log to show that the child and parent are participating in the activities at home.
Part 2: Methodology and Evaluation Plans
In Part 2 the methodology and the evaluation plan are discussed. The methodology will include; a program description, research design, human participants (sample), study validity and reliability, assumptions and limitations, proposed time line, non-personnel and personnel resources, and a management plan. The methodology plan is necessary to discuss how the grant money will be used, but also how the progress of the early literacy program will be documented. This information will be shared to address the positive progress and the continuation of the program.
Methodology
Program description. The Child Early Literacy Program is a program that will focus on the early literacy of young children ages 3-8. Children in the program will have access to a qualified teacher two to three times a week for an average of 10 to 30 minutes, depending on their level of literacy. The program will begin at the beginning of the year where parents will be notified, students will be evaluated on their current literacy, and then the program will run the rest of the year. Parents will be expected to be partners in the program in completing weekly literacy activities at home. At the end of the year all children participants will be evaluated to show improvement in literacy.
Research design. Before any evaluations take place it’s important to note that each family will be notified of the program, before its inception, and each family will be asked for permission for their child to participate. The informed consent will also include information on the partnership with the family to assist the child each week with literacy activities.
The program will utilize the correlational research design with three evaluations to report. All evaluations are quantifiable. The first evaluation will be a weekly reported generated by the teachers to show the frequency of how often a child participates each week and for how many minutes. The second evaluation is a self-report from parents to show the frequency that they worked with the child at home. The third evaluation will be pre and post-test scores on the areas of print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness taken at the beginning of the year (as a baseline) and again at the end of the year (Lonigan, Wagner, & Torgesen, 2018). The third evaluation will use the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) which is deemed for ages 3 – 11 years. The independent variables will be the frequency of minutes total each week with the teacher (a continuous variable) and the number of activities completed each week at home with the parents (a continuous variable). The dependent variable will be the comparison of pre and post test scores on all 3 areas of literacy (continuous variable). Correlations will be addressed utilizing a multiple regression, as the dependent variable is continuous and can be run separately for the three areas of literacy or on a combined score, and there are two independent variables (weekly frequency of teaching and frequency of at-home activities ( that are both measured continuously. The design will address if the CELP program and continued activities at home make a significant difference on the early literacy skills of the child. Furthermore, data will address the significance, the strength and direction of the correlation, and how controlling effects for the independent variables can change the data.
Human subjects. All children from ages 3 to 8 (or grades 3-years through second grade) will be eligible to participate in the program. The first 100 eligible children will be accepted into the program. Teachers will make recommendations based on student achievement and for those students that have English as a second language to benefit from the program. Parents will be notified of the program through a letter sent home. Parents/caregivers will be called or spoken to for any letters not returned or signed to ensure that all eligible students are given the opportunity to participate. New students will be accepted due to teacher recommendation throughout the year.
Study Validity and Reliability. The validity and reliability of the program is focused on the three objectives; weekly frequency of teaching, weekly frequency of at-home activities, and pre and post measurements of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) (Lonigan et al., 2018). The frequency of teaching and home activities can be considered reliable as teachers and the parents are expected to offer the same amount of time and activities to the children. Meaning that the time and activities should be consistent each week per child. The frequency of teaching and home activities can be considered valid as the objective and evaluation for both of these have the same expectations and for each student. The TOPEL was developed and normed using a sample of 842 students in the United States (Goodrich, Lonigan, & Alfonso, 2019). Convergent validity is a form of construct validity, which measures the construct of literacy in comparison to other tests that also measure literacy (Creswell, 2014). The criterion measures of the convergent validity are high as each subtest ranged from .59 to .77 (Goodrich et al, 2019). These are considered to be strong positive correlations (Creswell, 2014). Internal consistency reliability was used on all three sub-areas of the assessment (Goodrich et al., 2019). Internal consistency reliability is how well the items that reflect the same construct of literacy yield similar results (Creswell, 2014). Reliability was measured through internal consistency on the three sub-tests; print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness (Goodrich et al, 2019). Phonological awareness, a 27 item scale that measures a children’s ability to detect and manipulate sounds, was found to be strong (α = .90). Print knowledge, a 36 item scale that measures a child’s knowledge of print concepts, discrimination, and correspondence, was found to be strong (α = .96). Definitional vocabulary, a 35 item scale that measures a child’s naming and definitional component, was also found to be high (α – .96).
Assumptions and limitations. The assumptions for the program, and its evaluation include the assumption that the teacher and the parent will keep an accurate record of frequency of time and activities with the child each week. It is assumed that when the child takes the pre and post test that they will answer truthfully and to the best of their knowledge. It is assumed that the test scores will be measured continuously and that both the frequency of teacher and home activities will be measured continuously to fit a multiple regression (Creswell, 2014). It is also assumed that before running the test that there is an independence of observation, a linear relationship, the data will show multicollinearity, there will not be any significant outliers or high leverage points, and that the residuals are approximately normally distributed.
There are several limitations of the program and the assessment. Teachers may not always be aware of a child’s lack of achievement in literacy to make a referral for the program. Only 100 of the children can be accepted due to financial and personnel resources. Also, some children that have English as a second language are literacy proficient, and this will be deemed as so by the assessment. Next, some children may not get referred until later on in the year as literacy issues arise, some may be new to the school, and the program will only accept 100 participants per year. Some parents may not be literate in English and will need extra guidance with the at-home assessments. However, these are a way of helping the parents work with their children at home and can also be viewed as a benefit with the extra support given. Also, a limitation of measuring all of the information quantifiably is that the qualitative aspect of the assessment is missing. Qualitative information can be used to ask about the experience of the program from the child, the teacher, and the parents. This can, in turn, help make adjustments to the program.
Time line. The expected time line for the program is that it will run from the first day of school until the end of the year, roughly to the last 2 weeks of the school. This is to make time for testing and comparison of the pre and post test scores.. Parents will be sent home letters starting the first week of school so that testing can start within the first month. Qualified professionals and parents will work each week with the child during this time line.
Non-personnel resources. Non-personnel resources are those that are resources used in the program. A separate building or room is not needed as a budgeted resource as assistance will be given at the school before after school. 10 Test-kits, each containing a manuals, and a picture book, will be needed to perform simultaneous testing (Lonigan et al., 2018). However, a 100 record booklets are needed for each child and more can be ordered. Literacy packet that contains activities for print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness and pens and pencils will be needed. A file cabinet will need to be purchased as well as files to keep track of the child’s progress. Copies of sheets that contain information about the frequency of teacher and parental activities can be copied at the school and the program will pay for this each month. Literary packets/activities are also needed to be sent home to the parents each week.
Personnel resources. Teachers and parents are the main resources here. 10 teachers will be paid to work before or after school with the children. It is preferable that it is either the child’s teacher or a teacher in the same grade. Parents are an expected/assumed non-paid personnel resource. There will be a director for the program, Dr. Nicole Hamilton, that will work to ensure that each child is being tested and will assist in the testing as well as that the teachers are meeting guidelines for each child and making proper documentation.
Management plan. The timeline for management will be addressed in quarters. The first quarter will be a testing period and a start to the program. In the following years the post-test at the end of the year will be considered the baseline for the next year to help the program have a strong start each year. The second and third quarters will include the teachers working with the children and the home activities with the parents. The fourth quarter will be a completion of the program and post-assessment of the TOPEL (Lonigan et al., 2018).. The director will manage the program by taking all referrals from the teachers and sending home permission letters to parents (in English and Spanish). The director will call or meet any parents that did not either return or sign the letters. The director will match up children to receive testing for each child and will participate in giving the assessments as well. Each child that qualifies for the program will then be matched up with the teachers enrolled in the program. The teachers are responsible for meeting with the assigned students each week and for using literacy materials, as per the curriculum the school, to work with the child and to send home for parental support. The director will also check each week that each child’s folder has been marked with the days, times, and minutes of work with the child and the parental activity completions.
The Evaluation Plan
Before the program can begin an institutional review board (IRB) approval will be needed. WKKF (n.d.) does not have any specific requirements for an IRB approval. However, the school district will want internal IRB approval and, as per the ethical codes of the American Psychological Association [APA], the director will obtain approval to ensure that testing procedures are ethically sound. Then parents must be notified of the program by a letter sent home to sign and return, before testing can begin. The letter will include an informed consent, as per approval of the IRB.
The first evaluation is a completion of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) (Lonigan et al., 2018). This evaluation was chosen because it has a high reliability and validity in accurately measuring literacy for individuals in the early childhood age range. A teacher in the program, that the child will work if the child qualifies for the program, will administer the assessment. The children will be evaluated as per each subtest; phonological awareness (27 items), print knowledge (36 items), and definitional vocabulary (35 items) (Goodrich et al., 2019). If the child does not respond in English then the child is prompted to respond in English, if the child does not respond then the item is scored as incorrect. This is due to the need to be English proficient in literacy as well as proficient in their home language. Each of the sub-tests will give a quantitative score, however the three subtest scores are combined to determine a composite score as well as standard scores and percentile ranks to determine emergent literacy skills (Lonigan et al., 2018). The TOPEL test takes a total of 25-30 minutes.
The second evaluation will be the weekly log of days and minutes that a teacher works with each child. The amount of time is determined by the results of the TOPEL scores of the individual child. The third evaluation is also a weekly log of activities and the amount of time activities are worked on at home. These activities and the time needed will also depend on the TOPEL scores of the individual child.
The TOPEL will be administered again at the end of the program by the teacher that has worked with the child during the program. Each child will again be evaluated on each subtest; phonological awareness (27 items), print knowledge (36 items), and definitional vocabulary (35 items) to determine a composite score (Goodrich et al., 2019; Lonigan et al., 2018). The score will be compared to the pre-test score at the beginning of the program to show progress. Also, an evaluation of time spent per week and the composite score at the beginning and at the end of the program will allow for the director to show that the work with the teachers and partnering at home results in positive progress in literacy.
The results of the TOPEL and the log activities of both the teacher and the parents will be summarized in an overall report for WKKF (n.d.). The results will show the summative individual scores of the pre and compared post-tests and an average of weekly time with the teacher and parent for each child. A report will be written to show the statistical significance of the literacy program and how continued effort in this area is promising to the child, but also to the families and the community.
Part 3: Budget, Budget Narrative, and Sustainability Plan
Part 3 will address a budget plan that will contain all non-personnel and personnel resources given in Part 2. These will be addressed line per line for a total annual budget. A budget narrative will follow that will state each non-personnel and each personnel budget in a rationale of the costs needed. Lastly, a sustainability plan will be discussed how the program plans to continue operating this once the funding has depleted. The sustainability plan will also indicate where future funding and other resources might be obtained.
Budget
The budget worksheet is on the next page, as per the limited space and spacing.
Personnel Name
Personnel Title
Time/Effort Percentage (%)
Time/Effort Hours/Week
Dollar Amount for Yearly Salary
Dollar Amount for Fringe Benefits
Grand Total Dollar Amount
Nicole Hamilton
Project Director
20%
10 hours/week
$7200/year
n/a
$7200/year
Teacher 1
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 2
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 3
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 4
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 5
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 6
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 7
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 8
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 9
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher 10
Literacy Teacher
12%
5 hours/week
$4300
n/a
$4300
Teacher Training
10%
4 hours/one time training
$50.00
n/a
$500.00
Subtotals
11
140%
60 hours
$72,000
n/a
$72,500
Amount
Dollar Amount per each item
Total Dollar Amount
Grand Total Dollar Amount
Itemized Equipment
Test Kit with Manual & Picture Book
10
$260
$2600
$2600
25 booklets
4
$66
$264
$264
Teacher Literacy Packets
10
$50
$500
$500
At-Home Literacy Packets
100
$20
$2000
$2000
File Cabinet
1
$250
$250
$250
Pencils & file folders
100
$50
$50
Monthly Stipend to Copy sheets at the school
1
$100
$100
Subtotals
326
$5764
$5764
Personnel: Grand Total Dollar Amount Requested
Non-Personnel Grand Total Dollar Amount Requested
Grand Total Dollar Amount Requested
Grand Total Direct Costs
$72,500
$5764
$78,264
Budget Narrative and Sustainability Plan
Budget Narrative. The total budget for the CELP program is $78,264.00 for the first year, however the total personnel budget is $72,500 for the year. The personnel budget includes 1 director and 10 teachers. The director will work 10 hours a week, after school, and is paid $7200.00 for the year, while school is in session. This amount is based on an administrative salary of $65,000.00 per year. There will be 10 teachers that work for the school that will be hired for additional time and pay to work with students before or after school. Each teacher is expected to work 5 hours a week, leaving them time to work with at least 2 children per hour for a total of 5 hours per week. Each teacher will be paid a salary of $4300.00 during the school year. This amount is based off a $50,000.00 teacher salary in the state of Texas. In addition, each teacher will be trained one time before the program for a 4-hour session at $50.00 each, for a total of $500.00.
The non-personnel budget has items that are a one-time purchase and others that need to be replenished each year. The non-personnel budget for the first year is $5764.00. First, a total of 10 Test Kits (containing a manual and picture book) will be needed for pre and post-testing at $260.00 each, or $2600.00 total. A total of 100 booklets will be needed for the year at $66 for a packet of 25, which is $264 for the year, and this item will need to be purchased each year. Teacher Literacy Packets are $50.00 each, 10 will be needed for a total of $500.00 for the year and these do not need to be re-purchased each year. At-Home Literacy Packets are $20.00 each, 100 will be needed for a total of $2000.00 for the year and these do not need to be re-purchased each year. 1 file cabinet at $250 is needed as a one-time purchase. Folders and pencils are needed each year at $50.00. Lastly, a monthly stipend of $10.00 for a total of $100.00 for the year is to use the copier at the school.
Sustainability Plan. The sustainability plan is an area of interest to the program as well as to WKFF (n.d.). Several of the items do not need to be re-purchased each year including; the Test Kits, Teacher Literacy Packet, At-Home Literacy Packets, and the file cabinet. However, these items can be worn and re-purchased at a later date. Books, pencils, file folders, and the monthly copy stipend will need to be purchased each year. In order to sustain the financial stability of the program CELP will benefit from a relationship with the school district and the school and other community agencies. The evaluations will show the administration of the school, and the district, how each child’s score is improving and that this can have a direct effect on standardized scoring. This will be an evidence-based preventive intervention and approach for the children, families, and the district. This makes the program a beneficial partner to the school and the district. The district may be able to allocate money for non-personnel resources and for some teachers, leaving only a small amount needed. Surrounding communities can be appealed to make this difference in the finances needed. There are multiple sources that would provide funding. These include large organization such as; Bill Millers, H-E-B, and Taco Cabana do utilize money each year towards philanthropic and community needs. Also, the grant with WKFF can be appealed to as can other grants to close the gap in the yearly funding. A weaving of financial efforts will allow for this program to continue to serve low-income children and the need for literacy development starting at a young age. The CELP program is still in the developmental stage. However, with the strong support of the school, the community, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation then the school and the families can take advantage of the literacy services offered.
Conclusion
The Child Early Literacy Program is designed to begin in the 3-year old program through the second-grade year at an elementary school that is considered to be low-income in order to address the need for early literacy. The program will be initiated with teacher referrals and follow-up for children to join the program. The teachers will be trained in order to give the pre and post-assessment for literacy including; print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness. Each teacher will work with a child two to three times a week and at varying times based on the scores of the child. The teachers may individualize, small group, or large group as per the needs of the children. The children will also take home a literacy pack to work with their family. All teacher and family interactions will be recorded. At the end of the year the post-assessment can be given for an evidenced-based approach to improve literacy. In conclusion, this program will show evidence of how literacy is improving for the children, the family, and the surrounding community to enable continued support for the Child Early Literacy Program.
References
American Psychological Association [APA]. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Cetin, O.S., G, M., Katrinci, M. (2018). A study on the effect of pre-school education on early literacy skills. International Online Journal of Educational Science, 10(5), 201-221.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(54), 198-213. doi:10.1177/0271121407311238
Goodrich, J.M., Lonigan, C.J., & Alfonso, S.V. (2019). Measurement of early literacy skills among monolingual English-speaking and Spanish-speaking language-minority children: A differential item functioning analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47(2), 9-110. http://doi.org/10.1016.j.ecresq.2018.10.007
Hilbert, D.D, & Eis, S.D. (2014). Early intervention for emergent literacy development in a collaborative community pre-kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 105-113. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0588-3
Lee, J.A.C., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Socioeconomic and gender group differences in early literacy skills: A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis approach. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 21(1), 40-59. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1010545
Lonigan, C.J., Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (2018). Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL). Retrieved from https://www.academictherapy.com/detailATP.tpl?
&eqskudatarq=DDD-1146
Pears, K.C., Healey, C.V., Fisher, P.A., Braun, D., Gill, C., …Ticer, S. (2014). Immediate effects of a program to promote school readiness in low-income children: Results of a pilot study. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(3), 431-460. doi:10.1353/etc.2014.0021
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies ( Title I, Part A). Retrieved from http://www.2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/
index.html
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (n.d.). Educated Kids. Retrieved from https://www.wkkf.org/what-we-do/educated-kids
Xu, Y., Chin, C., Reed, E., & Hutchinson, C. (2014). The effects of a comprehensive early literacy project on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills. Early Childhood Education, 42, 295-304. doi:10.1007/s1064-01300613-6
The post The effects of a comprehensive early literacy project on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
We are a leading academic writing company, which has been providing exclusive writing services for years.