Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014)

15 Pages·2014·0.33 MB·English

Journal of Educational Psychology
Montessori Public School Pre-K Programs and the School
Readiness of Low-Income Black and Latino Children
Arya Ansari and Adam Winsler
Online First Publication, May 12, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036799
CITATION
Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014, May 12). Montessori Public School Pre-K Programs and the
School Readiness of Low-Income Black and Latino Children. Journal of Educational
Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036799
JournalofEducationalPsychology ©2014AmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2014,Vol.106,No.3,000 0022-0663/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036799
Montessori Public School Pre-K Programs and the School Readiness of
Low-Income Black and Latino Children
Arya Ansari Adam Winsler
UniversityofTexasatAustin GeorgeMasonUniversity
WithintheUnitedStates,thereareavarietyofearlyeducationmodelsandcurriculaaimedatpromoting
young children’s pre-academic, social, and behavioral skills. This study, using data from the Miami
School Readiness Project (Winsler et al., 2008, 2012), examined the school readiness gains of low-
shers.broadly. istnicochnooamolleppLrroeag-tKirnaompr(songu(cid:2)rsainm7g,s0:4tht5he)oasHnediginBh/plSarccookgpr(eanm(cid:2)csuru6rs,i7cin0ug0lu)tmhcehiwMlditrohenntaeesnlsirotoerlirlaeccduyrirniscu2upldpuilmfefmeareennndtt.tthyPopasereesniontfsmTaiontlrdee-t1ceoapncuvhbeelnircs-
dpubliminated rAespsoerstsemdeonnt(Lcheibludfrfeen’&s sNoacgioli-eermi,o1t9io9n9a)l,wanhderebaeshcahviilodrraeln’sskipllrse-awciatdhemthiecsDkeilvlser(ecuoxgnEitaivrley,mCohtioldr,hoaondd
salliedisse lNanehgruiangge,)Brwuenrie,&asRseasnsdeodlpdhi,r1ec9t9ly2)watitthhetbheegiLnenainrnginagndAencdcoomfpthliesihrm4-eynetarP-rooldfilper–eD-Kiagyneaors.tiAcll(cNheihldrrineng,,
eofittobe roeugtatrhdelepsrse-oKfcyuerarric;uhlouwme,vdeerm,aollnscthrailteddregnaidnisdancorotsbsepnreef-iatceadqeumalilcy,sforocmio-Memoontitoenssaol,rainpdrobgerhaamviso.raLlastkinilloscthhrioldurgehn-
onot inMontessoriprogramsbegantheyearatmostriskinpre-academicandbehavioralskills,yetexhibited
n
ors thegreatestgainsacrossthesedomainsandendedtheyearscoringabovenationalaverages.Conversely,
i
ciationerand Batltaecnkdicnhgilmdroerneecxohnibvietnetdiohneaalltphrye-gKainpsroignraMmosn.teFsisnodriin,gbsuthathveeyimdepmliocnatsitorantsedfosrlitgahiltolyringgreeaaterrlygacihnisldwhohoend
sous educationprogramsforLatinoandBlackchildrenfromlow-incomecommunities.
s
Aal
ologicalindividu Keywords:Montessori,curriculum,schoolreadiness,publicschoolpre-K,poverty
he
ch
yt
Psof Overthelastdecade,wehaveseenasignificantincreaseinthe eliminatesuchgapsinschoolachievement,effortstargetchildren
ne
caus rateofyoungchildrenlivinginpoverty,wheretoday,oneinfive before kindergarten entry because those who enter kindergarten
merinal are considered poor (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Poverty has more ready to learn do better in school and are less likely to be
eAerso important implications for children’s early development and is retainedand/ordropout(Duncanetal.,2007;Magnuson,Meyers,
ythhep associated with increased risk of school failure (Duncan & Mag- Ruhm,&Waldfogel,2004;Winsleretal.,2012).
bt nuson, 2005; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007; Huston & Today, early care and education programs (e.g., center-based
yrightedolelyfor Bscehnotolely,ac2h0i1e0v)e.mAecnrotsasrtehedUocnuitmedenStteadtesa,csriozsasbliencgoampseinacnhdildetrhenni’cs caanrei,nfcarmeaisliyncghlyildccoamrem,pounbleixcpperrei-eKncperofgorramyosu,nangdcHhieladdreSntabrte)foarree
scopdeds lniunseosnas&eWarlayldafsogkeinl,d2er0g0a5r)t,enan(dDounncceanth&eseMgaagpnsusinone,a2rl0y0l5e;aMrniangg- kasindanergoaprpteonrteunntirtyy(tLoaupgrohmlino,te20c1h3i)ld.rTehne’sseeeaarrllyysscehrvoioclesreaardeisneeesns
in
entnte areestablished,childrenfromdisadvantagedbackgroundsareless (Ansari&Winsler,2013;Burchinal,Peisner-Feinberg,Bryant,&
documcleisi likelytocatchuptotheirmoreaffluentpeers(Reardon,2011).To CGlaiyffeorr,dP,h2il0li0p0s;,D&eDarainwgs,onM,c2C0a0r5t;neLyo,eb&,FTualylelor,r,K2a0g0a9n;,&GoCrmarlreoyl,,
hisarti 2004; Magnuson et al., 2004; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel,
This 2007; Winsler et al., 2008, 2012). Along with the facilitation of
T
children’searlyskills,thebenefitsofhigh-qualityearlyeducation
AryaAnsari,DepartmentofHumanDevelopmentandFamilySciences,
programshavebeendocumentedtolastthroughthemiddle-school
UniversityofTexasatAustin;AdamWinsler,DepartmentofPsychology,
GeorgeMasonUniversity. and high-school years (Dearing et al., 2009; Miller & Bizzell,
The project on which this article is based was funded by the Early 1984; Vandell et al., 2010). Although the type and quality of
LearningCoalitionofMiami-Dade/Monroe.Thisworkwasalsosupported services vary greatly, it is generally suggested that, on average,
byEuniceKennedyShriverNationalInstituteofChildHealthandHuman public school pre-K programs promote children’s pre-academic,
DevelopmentGrantT32HD007081-35(PrincipalInvestigator:KellyRa- social, and behavioral development (Gormley et al., 2005; Mag-
ley)awardedtothePopulationResearchCenterattheUniversityofTexas
nuson & Waldfogel, 2005; Winsler et al., 2008). Note, however,
atAustin.Wethankallthechildren,families,andagenciesthatparticipated
qualitypreschoolprogramsareoftenunavailabletochildrenfrom
andmadetheMiamiSchoolReadinessProjectpossible.
disadvantaged backgrounds (Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005;
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arya
Dearingetal.,2009;Fuller,Holloway,&Liang,1996;Magnuson
Ansari,DepartmentofHumanDevelopmentandFamilySciences,Univer-
sityofTexasatAustin,1UniversityStationA2702,SEA1.142,Austin, et al., 2004), and these differences in access to preschool exist
TX78712.E-mail:[email protected] across racial and ethnic lines (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005).
1
2 ANSARIANDWINSLER
Consequently,therehasbeengrowinginterestamongresearchers, ing children’s early academic achievement, social skills, and be-
policy makers, practitioners, and parents in the type of education havior(PCER,2008).
youngchildrenreceiveasameansforfosteringchildren’sschool
readiness, especially for children from minority and low-income
Montessori Curriculum
backgrounds.
WithintheUnitedStates,thereareincreasingnumbersofearly Among other noteworthy curricula are Montessori programs,
education models/curricula (e.g., Montessori and High/Scope) whichhaveexistedforover100yearsandcontinuetoincreasein
aimed at improving children’s early learning (Lillard, 2008); yet, popularity—today,theseprogramsareusedinover4,000schools
preschool curricula, the instructional blueprints and materials for (Cossentino, 2005). Montessori programs are often characterized
promoting children’s early skills, have received little empirical by mixed-age classrooms that facilitate individualized learning,
attention (Clements, 2007). Classroom curriculum is important and compared to more conventional programs, they contain less
because it provides clear guidelines for learning objectives and teacher-directed structure, which allows for more child-directed
selecting/implementing activities that meet children’s developing activities that promote children’s early academic, social, and be-
y. needs. Although the goal of all programs is to provide learning havioral development (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). Unlike most
shers.broadl oanpdporretuqnuiitrieess fcoornctihniulderdene,vhaoluwatbioenstttoo ddoetethrmatinreemtahiensecfofenctetssteodf tirsatdaiitlioorneadlptoroegarcahmisn,dMivoindtueaslsocrhiilcdu’rsriicnutleareesmtsp,hleaasirzneinlgeasrtnyilneg,tahnadt
publinated different curricula on children’s early school success (Barnett et needs (Lillard, 2008) while also placing greater emphasis on the
dmi al.,2008). development of fine motor skills through practical life materials
salliedisse (sMpaocneste,swsohriic,h2a0ll0o4w).chMildornetnestsoorsiprcelaadssoruotomansdwhaovrekolnaragcetivoiptieens
ite High/Scope Curriculum
ofob independently and learn at their own pace and skill level. The
oneott High/Scope curriculum (Hohmann & Weikart, 2002), which materials/activities are arranged so that children progress from
orsn balances child-initiated and teacher-directed activities, is one of simple to complex and from concrete to abstract materials, and
i
ationand tthioenmporostgrfaremqsu.enTthlyeufoseudr panridncriepsleeasrcohfedthecuHrriigchu/lSacionpeearmlyodeedlucina-- oinngceaccthivilidtireesn(mLiallsaterdr,th2e0s0e8)ta.sFkusr,ththeery,Mmoonvteesosnortiocmlaossrerocohmasllepnrog--
cier
sous clude the following: active learning, positive child–adult interac- videlessfrequentteacherinstructionandplaceagreateremphasis
s
Aal tions, a child-friendly environment, and consistent routines. The on collaboration among children, whereby younger children re-
ologicalindividu pchoiwlderrenofarleeaarlnloinwgecdotmoeasctforonmthcehirilodwrennd’sesoiwrentoineixtipaltoivree,awndhemreabkye cseerivveingstiamsurloalteiomnofdroelms.older children, who in turn benefit from
he choices regarding the activities they want to do for the day, with The small, but growing, body of literature on Montessori edu-
ch
yt
Psof whom they want to play, and how they will play (Hohmann & cationsuggeststhatchildrenenrolledinMontessoriclassrooms—
ne Weikart, 2002). There is also a strong emphasis on children as both during the preschool and the kindergarten years (Kayili &
as
cu
erial “intentional learners,” whereby children plan, carry out, and re- Ari, 2011; Lillard, 2012; Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006) and even
Amson view their activities throughout the school day. Classrooms are during the later years in elementary school, middle school, and
eer organized to maximize children’s learning so they can indepen- high school (Dohrmann, Nishida, Gartner, Lipsky, & Grimm,
hp
ythe dently navigate throughout the day with centers (e.g., dramatic 2007;Lillard&Else-Quest,2006;Rathunde&Csikszentmihalyi,
bt
yrightedolelyfor ptihnlaegyea,nnavdri,trsmo/cnormarefetnsim,t,spcmoieartntaecnreit)alylts,h,ataotnmfdoesretoeturtthianepeirsonstioeteivfdaesc.silToitceaiatacelheaencrtsviivoreorgnlaemnaeriznne-t 2apn0rod0g5br)ae—mhasdv.eimoSrooamnlssetkraieltlvesegnthraesnautgecrgheiglsdatrinetnhsaietnntrahocelaledbdeeminneicfmi,tsosoreocficoo-Menmvoenonttetiiososnnoaarlil,
ps
coed through small- and large-group (e.g., music, reading, games) ac- preschoolprograms,atleastforBlackmales,aresustainedthrough
isnd tivities. Throughout the day, the role of teachers is to observe, highschool(Miller&Bizzell,1984).Dohrmannetal.(2007),who
entnte extend,andfacilitateopportunitiesforactivelearningandscaffold examinedtheacademicachievementofhighschoolstudentswho
mi
docucleis aWcteiioknasrt,to200b2es).t support children’s development (Hohmann & aMttielnwdaeudkeMeoPnutebslsicorSicphroooglrsa,mfosufnrodmthpartesstcuhdoeonlttsodfeifmthongsrtardaetewdisthuisn-
hisarti In smaller experimental trials (e.g., Perry Preschool), children tained academic benefits (math and science) 5 years after they
Ts
hi exposed to High/Scope have been found to exhibit better out- returned to traditional programs. Compared to students who at-
T
comes,bothshort-andlong-term,comparedtochildreninDirect tendedtraditionalpublicschools,studentswhoexperiencedMon-
Instruction classrooms who show substantially worse socio- tessori also exhibited higher scores on assessments of math and
emotional development (Schweinhart et al., 2005). In larger, less science (Dohrmann et al., 2007). Existing randomized trials also
intensiveprograms,however,theefficacyoftheHigh/Scopecur- indicatethatinner-cityelementary-agechildrenattendingMontes-
riculum remains mixed (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Re- sori programs exhibited higher scores across areas of early
search Consortium [PCER], 2008). In fact, roughly a quarter achievement, social skills, and behavior compared to children
(22%) of Head Start programs nationwide utilize the High/Scope enrolledinmoretraditionaleducationalprograms(Lillard&Else-
model(Zigler&Bishop-Josef,2006),butmosthavenotproduced Quest, 2006). Similarly, children in Montessori classrooms have
the same impact as the Perry Preschool program (Duncan & beendocumentedasexhibitinghigherexecutivefunctioningcom-
Magnuson, 2013; Puma et al., 2010). Note, however, that in paredtotheirpeerswhowerealsointhelotteryforMontessori,but
general, most large-scale preschool curricula (e.g., Bright Begin- whowerenotchosen(Lillard&Else-Quest,2006).Thesebenefits
nings, Doors to Discovery, Literacy Express, Early Literacy and have also been documented for children in preschool (Lillard,
LearningModel)havebeendeemedratherineffectiveinpromot- 2012),whereaskindergarten-agechildreninMontessorihavedem-
MONTESSORIPRE-KPROGRAMS 3
onstratedmuchstrongerfinemotorskills(Rule&Stewart,2002), disadvantagedethnicsubgroupstodeterminewhethercertainchil-
whichhasimportantimplicationsforlateracademicachievement drenbenefitmorethanothersfromMontessorieducation.
(Carlson,Rowe,&Curby,2013;Grissmer,Grimm,Aiyer,Murrah,
&Steele,2010).
Gaps in the Literature and the Current Study
OtherevaluationsofMontessoricurriculumaremoremixedand
suggest that the Montessori method does not promote school-age AlthoughtherehasbeenrapidgrowthoftheMontessoricurric-
children’searlyskillsanymorethantraditionalprograms(Cox& ulum, there continues to be limited and inconsistent empirical
Rowlands, 2000; Lopata, Wallace, & Finn, 2005). Specifically, support for such programs, especially during the early childhood
Cox and Rowlands (2000) examined young children’s creativity years(Cox&Rowlands,2000;Lillard,2012).Todate,notmany
whenenrolledinalternativeformsofeducation(SteinerandMon- studies in the Montessori literature have focused on children’s
tessori)andtraditionalpublicschools.Resultsindicatedthatchil- schoolachievement(Borman,Hewes,Overman,&Brown,2003),
dreninMontessoriprogramsexhibitedsimilarlevelsofcreativity and there are even fewer studies that examine the impact of
astheirpeersinmoretraditionalprogramsbutlessthanchildrenin Montessori programs on children’s socio-emotional and behav-
publishers.natedbroadly. SusccortbhegiaonnnoietlrisMvsewocsinhtktoheiolsrllssesog.(rLaiFrodupprrattoohtgaeprrear,tmotamhsle.o,art2erien0ig0sn5oss)ct.ohAmboeloetthlt-eeoarvugitgedhheacnnshccielhtdroarsodeulnig-t’aigsogenelsoatcinlnhgpgi-lutdebtrhrlemianct idRgooraremavaletaerdi,rne2sve0eco0lofo3npe)oma.mrIelniynctgl,meebaneoreantrnhianslog,wfM(whHoohesnicectkehcmshsaaoirlenrdirn&peonrwoKmgarreuiagctmzho,tsg2nsah0itzto1rew2ad;cathLsifigaeihmmwep,irlo2iser0tsta1aron2tf-t;
dmi in Montessori programs scored higher on assessments of math ing points and greater gains over time than for children from
itsallieedisse cthoimrdpsaroefdatoSDth)e,irbypemerisddilneospcehnooml,atghneetchsiclhdoreonlsin(roMugohnltyestsworoi lroeswu-litn,ctohmeeliteurrabtaunrecoonmMmuonnitteisesso,rrieegdaurdclaetsiosnohfacsuorrfitceunlubmee.nAlisma-
ofob programsweredoingmuchworseonassessmentsoflanguage,but ited to rather homogenous, higher income, or White samples
oneott theyshowednodifferencesinmathabilities(Lopataetal.,2005). (Lillard,2012),andtherefore,theextenttowhichBlackandLatino
orsn children from low-income backgrounds demonstrate gains across
i
ationand Variability in Montessori Effects psoreri-apcraodgermamics, issocnioot-ecmleoatrioannadl,raenqduirbeeshaavttieonrtailons.kiTllos oinurMkonnotwesl--
cier
sous edge, no study to date has explicitly explored outcomes of Mon-
Asal Although children from all racial/ethnic groups benefit from tessori preschool programs for Latino children. Accordingly, we
ologicalindividu pm1r9ae9gs5cn;hitoGuodole,rmothfleetryheeehtbaesanl.eb,feie2tsn00vg5ar;roywLaoicnergbo,sesBvgirdrideongucepess,(tBoCaussrusrgioegke,&sFtTuthhllaoetmr,tah&se, eskxialmlsinaecrgoassinsthien4c-hyieldarre-onl’ds pprree--aKcadyeemaricf,osrocBilaalc,kanadndbeLhaavtiinoor
he children enrolled in two types of Title-1 public school pre-K
ch
yt Rumberger, 2007; Raikes, Vogel, & Love, 2013). Emerging data
Psof are somewhat contradictory, with some suggesting that Latino programs—conventional programs and those closely following
ne Montessoricurriculum.
as
cu children have the most to gain from early education (Gormley et
eAmeriersonal awl.h,er2e0a0s5o;thLeoresbsuegtgeasl.t, t2h0a0t7B;laWckeilcahnidldr&enYboensheifkitawmao,re20w13it)h, PwrioWdjeee,cutun(sMieveSarRssiPutyb;-sWceotimnosmfleturhneeittdyaala.t,ap2pf0lri0oe8md,p2tah0re1tn2Me)—risahmaipliaaSrngcdeh-opsocroalglRer,aecmaoduiennvetaysls--
hp
ythe Latinos exhibiting minimal benefits (Bassok, 2010; Currie & uation—toaddressthefollowingresearchquestion:(1)Arethere
bt Thomas, 1995; Puma et al., 2010; Raikes et al., 2013). Accord-
yrightedolelyfor ienxgalmy,intahteiorenohfavdeiffbeereenntecaarlllsyeindutchaetiolinteprraotugrreamfosranthdecucrornictuinlauetdo dptiirofenf-eaKrle)?nyceFeausrritanhsecra,hiclfodunrnescnitd’isoernsincoghfotohcleurrceriaacldulilnfaoesr(sMthooevneetrexsatshmoeriincaovtusior.snecooonffvdethinfe--
copeds determine the best method for enhancing Latino children’s early ferent curricula for Latino children (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2013;
isnd learning and behaviors (Brooks-Gunn, Love, Raikes, & Chazan- Garcia&Jensen,2009)andevidencesuggestingthatthebenefits
entnte Cohen, 2013; Garcia & Jensen, 2009). In other words, simply ofearlyeducationprogramsmayvaryasafunctionofchildren’s
mi
docucleis leonookuignhg(aDtuanvcearnag&eMimapgancutssono,f2e0a1rl3y),cahnidldehxoaomdinparotigornamofseitshnnico-t rRaaciek/eesthneitciatyl.,(2C0u1r3ri)e, &weTahlosomaesx,p1lo9r9e5d; wGhoertmhelery(2e)t aclh.i,ld2r0e0n5’s;
hisarti ity as a potential moderator of preschool/curricular effects is ethnicity (Latino vs. Black) moderates the relation between cur-
This necessaryespeciallyconsideringtherapidlygrowingpopulationof riculumandchildren’sschoolreadiness.
T
Latinochildren(U.S.CensusBureau,2011).Examinationofeth- Regardless of curriculum, we believed that all children would
nic group differences is particularly important in the context of exhibit gains across all domains of early learning during the
Montessori programs. Since its inception, Montessori curricula pre-kindergartenyear.Consideringthatsomeofthemorerigorous
have been tailored to individual children’s learning (Morrison, studieshaveshownthatchildrendemonstrategreaterpre-academic
2007), which affords each child the opportunity to learn at their andbehavioralgainswhenenrolledinMontessoriprograms(Lil-
ownpaceandwouldbeparticularlyimportantforLatinochildren lard,2012;Lillard&Else-Quest,2006),weanticipatedthatMon-
whofrequentlyspeakalanguageotherthanEnglishathome(72%; tessori programs would foster greater skill gains across pre-
U.S.CensusBureau,2010).Further,oneofthecornerstonesofthe academic, socio-emotional, and behavioral skills than more
Montessorimethodistheincorporationofchildren’scultureinthe traditionalprograms.Withregardtopotentialdifferencesaccord-
classroom (Montessori, 1994), which some argue (Garcia & Jen- ing to ethnicity, we were unsure what to expect because most of
sen, 2007, 2009) is imperative for the early school success of the prior Montessori literature has used predominantly White
youngLatinochildren.Accordingly,giventheseuniquefeaturesof samples,andeveninthepriorworkthathasexaminedMontessori
the Montessori program, it is important to differentiate between amongurbanchildren(Lillard&Else-Quest,2006;Lopataetal.,
4 ANSARIANDWINSLER
2005), no distinctions have been made between subgroups (i.e., Table1
Latino, Black, Asian). However, given the unique features of the DemographicCharacteristicsofChildreninTitle-1
Montessoriprogram(i.e.,curriculatailoredtoindividualchildren’s PublicSchools
learningandincorporationofchildren’sculture),itispossiblethat
young Latinos would do better than their Black peers in these Programtype
classrooms. Variable Montessori Conventional For(cid:3)2
Childage(inmonths) n(cid:2)770 n(cid:2)12,975 0.02
Method
M(SD) 54.27(3.56) 54.29(3.52)
Childgender n(cid:2)770 n(cid:2)12,975 0.04
Participants %male 49.9 49.7
%female 50.1 50.3
Childethnicity n(cid:2)770 n(cid:2)12,975 169.92(cid:2)
ThisstudyusesasubsampleofdatafromtheMSRPinvolving
%Latino 28.4 52.6
Latino (n (cid:2) 7,045) and Black (n (cid:2) 6,700) children enrolled in
%Black 71.6 47.4
shers.broadly. hM(aipgiaphmr-opixoaivmtera4ttyey,lyeTai1rtsl%e-o1offpatughbee.lilcNarsogcteehrotMohlaStpRraeP-)sKmidpaelrnlotgnifruiaemmdbsaesirnbotofhtehchcLiilatdytrineonof Ho%%meESplnaagnnlgiissuhhage(allchildren) n(cid:2)7236..71409 n(cid:2)441552..74,325 215.36(cid:2)
publinated andBlack,andforthepurposeofouranalyses,thesechildrenwere Ho%meotlhaenrguageamongLatinos n(cid:2)0.2508 n(cid:2)67,.7457 6.86(cid:2)
sallieddissemi ephxroicwolruedvweeodrr,.k5As0hm%oowonsfgtchahaistludlebrsessnamthhpaandle1po0af%recnhotifsldcbhroeirlndnrfeoronumtwsiedtrheeisofofcrotehmiegmnU-ubnnoiitrtenyd;, %%%ESotpnhagenlriisshh 18270..55 18611...848
oneofitottobe SDtoamtesini(cCaunbRa:ep4u8b%li,c:H5a%ti:,H17o%nd,uNraisc:a5ra%g,uaan:d1P4%ue,rtCooRluicmo:b5ia%:;6D%e, LA%%P-ESDpnaganslisissehhssmentlanguage n(cid:2)8190..35511 n(cid:2)9627,..42623 3.93
orsn Feyter & Winsler, 2009). Children were included from all five Freeorreducedlunch n(cid:2)709 n(cid:2)12,325 14.23(cid:2)
i
ationand yheoartrsB/c,oh2o0r.t5s%(;20C0o2h–o2r0t0C7), o2f4.t5h%e;MCSoRhPor(tCDo,ho1r9t.7A%,;16C.6o%ho;rtCEo-, %%yneos 954..82 1809..19
cier
sous 18.7%). Eight of the public schools used Montessori pre-K cur- Note. LAP-D(cid:2)LearningAccomplishmentProfile–Diagnostic.
Asal riculum(n(cid:2)770children),whereastherestofthepre-Kprograms (cid:2)p(cid:4).05.
hologicaleindividu uwLsiiettehdraaaclyimte[orBarEecyLcLcoon]mvoeprnottnhioeennaHtl(oeHuitgihghehtro/Stnhc-eMoBpiefufilclidunir-nrHgicauErclauormluyrtLsu[aHpnpMglueHamg]e;en1atn2edd0 analyses suggest that Latinos in Montessori were slightly more
ch
nPsyeoft scclahsosorolso,mns(cid:2),w1e2,d9o75nocthhiladvreeni)n.1foUrmnfaotirotunnraeteglayr,dfinogrtwhehiHchigchh/Silcdorpene lLikateilnyotpoeecrosminecfornovmenStipoannailsphr-ospgeraamkisng(81h%om),e(cid:3)s2((28,7N%)(cid:2)th6a,9n65th)e(cid:2)ir
eAmericaersonalus rdtheicseteiHinvgiegudhis/tShhceboeBptewELeceuLnrroitchrueHltuMwmoH.,alintedrathceysesugprpoluepmsewnet;rethcuosm,wbienecdaninntoot 6p.a8rT6thl,yepdu(cid:4)unee.v0toe5n.thsepfraecatdthoaftentheingihcibtoyrhaocroodsssiMntohnitsecssitoyritecnodultdobbee
hp
ythe Onaverage,childreninMontessoriandconventionalprograms fairly segregated with areas that are largely Latino and areas
yrightedbolelyfort wbgereagrpienhni4cinyignefaoorfsrmtahanetdiosn6chbmoyoolngtyrhoesuapro)f.(saAegelelTp(aSabDrlteic(cid:2)i1pa3fno.t5rs3aavmttaeoinlnadtbehldse)Tdaiettmletho-1e- tfBhivlaaetcakorfecotlhamergmeeuilgynhiBttielMasc,okann(teUds.stSoh.reiCrepefnroosrguer,saLBmaustrienwaoeusr,em20ian1y0ph)r,aeavdneodmhiainnddaenleetsldys,
iscopndeds sthcehosoclhso,owlhqiucahliafryeindgeffionredfrebey/roevdeurce7d5%lunocfhth(FeRcLhi)ldsrteantuas.ttDenudeintgo apcrocegsrsamtosMweornetemssaogrniept/rcohgarratmerss.cHhoowolesv,earn,dt,htehueisg,hfatmMiolinetsewsseorrei
entnte participation in the larger MSRP project, we had access to chil- allowedtoapplytoenrolltheirchildrenfromothergeographic
documcleisi drermena’isneFdRLinsttahteuspduubrliincgstchheoirolfsoll(onw(cid:2)ing7k0i9n,de9r2g%arteonf ycehailrdirfentheiny amroeadsatienathllecdhiisltdrriecnt.,Bfaemcaiuliseestwheisshcihnogotlosewnerroellutnhaebirlecthoiladcrceonmin-
hisarti Montessori pre-K; n (cid:2) 12,325, 95% of children in traditional theMontessoriprogramshadtoapplythroughthepre-Klottery.
This pre-K). Children in Montessori programs were somewhat more Itislikelythatsomechildrenintheconventionalprogramshad
T enteredtheMontessorilotteryandwereunsuccessful.Itisalso
likely to receive FRL (95%) during their kindergarten year than
important to note that the conventional pre-K programs also
children attending more traditional preschool programs (90%),
(cid:3)2(1,N(cid:2)13,034)(cid:2)14.23,p(cid:4).001.2Also,andascanbeseen tendedtobeinfairlymono-ethnic(i.e.,largelyBlackorLatino)
neighborhoods, and that by definition, all children, regardless
in Table 1, Latino children in our sample were more likely to
of curricula, attended low-income, Title-1 schools (75% FRL
attendtraditionalpreschoolprogramsandwerelesslikelytobein
Montessori. Correspondingly, Black children in this sample were
overrepresented in Montessori classrooms, (cid:3)2(1, N (cid:2) 13,745) (cid:2) 1We re-ran analyses with a random selection of 800 children in con-
169.92,p(cid:4).001.Ascanbeexpectedgiventhisethnicdifference, ventional programs to make sure that the statistical significance of our
children in Montessori were also more likely to speak English at resultsreportedbelowwasnotduetothelargesamplesizeofchildrenin
home than children in more traditional programs, (cid:3)2(2, N (cid:2) conventional programs. Results from these randomly selected 800 cases
13,034) (cid:2) 215.36, p (cid:4) .001. Given the uneven distribution of werethesame.
2Were-ranthemodelsdescribedbelowcontrollingforFRLstatus,and
BlacksandLatinosacrossprograms,wealsoexaminedthehome allresultswerethesameasthosereportedbelow;therefore,tomaximize
language within the Latino population only. Results from these oursamplesize,wereportresultswithoutcontrollingforFRLstatus.
MONTESSORIPRE-KPROGRAMS 5
eligibility) and neighborhoods (income below $30,000; U.S. riculumdifferenceswerearesultofassessmentlanguage.Assess-
Census Bureau, 2010). mentlanguagedidnotvaryasafunctionofcurriculum,(cid:3)2(1,N(cid:2)
There were other notable differences between the Montessori 6,734)(cid:2)3.94,p(cid:2).114.Whenaddingassessmentlanguageasan
programsandthemoreconventionalpre-Kprogramsthatfollowed independentvariableinaseriesofanalysesofvariance(ANOVAs),we
theHigh/Scopecurriculum.Althoughallclassroomshadachild– found that children scored similarly regardless of language of
adultratioof18–2,Montessoriclassroomswerelikelystaffedby assessmentonthecognitivesubscale,F(1,3625)(cid:2)2.22,p(cid:2).136;
moreeducatedlead-teachers.Specifically,Montessoriprogramsin language subscale, F(1, 3563) (cid:2) 1.24, p (cid:2) .266; and fine motor
this district required teachers to have a master’s degree, whereas subscale, F(1, 3733) (cid:2) 2.24, p (cid:2) .136. Further, language of
more conventional programs required only a bachelor’s degree.
assessment did not interact with curriculum for the cognitive
Similartootherconventionalpre-Kprograms,eachclassroomwas subscale, F(1, 3625) (cid:2) 0.40, p (cid:2) .526; language subscale, F(1,
alsostaffedwithoneassistantteacherwhohadreceivedabache- 3563)(cid:2)0.01,p(cid:2).945;orfinemotorsubscale,F(1,3733)(cid:2)0.23,
lor’s degree. Teachers in the Montessori classrooms also had p (cid:2) .631. Thus, we left language of assessment out of further
receivedspecialteachertrainingandcertificationtobecomeoffi-
analyses.
y. cial Montessori teachers. Accordingly, Montessori programs in
shers.broadl trhigisorsotuusdyas, tahtolseeacstonwsiidthereredgcalradsstiocMtraoinntiensgs,orwieprboeglriaemves(wLeilrlearads, timSeocpioo-ienmtsoatisonthael aLnAdP-bDe,hapvairoernatsl apnrdobtleeamcsh.ersArtepthoertesdamone
publinated 2012). Further, to meet the needs of the curriculum, complete cDheivlderreenu’xs Esoacriloy-eCmhoiltdiohnoaoldanAdssbeeshsmaveinotra(lDsEtrCenAg;thLsewbuitfhfeth&e
dmi Montessorimaterialsandactivitieswerealsoprovided.Although
salliedisse fMidoenlitteyssionrfioprmroagtrioamnsisfanloltcalovsaeilatobl“ec,lwasesibc”eliMevoenttehsesoprairtpircoipgaratimngs Nsealfg-lcieornit,ro1l9,9a9t)t,acwhmhiecnht,coannsdisbtsehoafvifoorurcosnucbesrcnasl.esT:hienitDiaEtiCvAe,
ofitobe (asopposedto“supplemented”programs;Lillard,2012),withthe was available in both English and Spanish, with parents and
oneott exception of mixed-age classrooms, which is often seen in tradi- teachers choosing the language in which they were most com-
orsn tionalMontessoriprograms. fortable.Acrossbothtimepoints,approximately69%ofparents
ationandi apnadren9t9s%anodftetaecahcheresrswceoremapslekteeddtothreatDeEcChiAldrienn’Esnsgolcisiahl.sBkoiltlhs
ociser Measures and behaviors from the prior 4 weeks on a 5-point scale (0 (cid:2)
su
Asal Cognitive, language, and fine motor skills. Children’s pre- never, 1 (cid:2) rarely, 2 (cid:2) occasionally, 3 (cid:2) frequently, and 4 (cid:2)
ologicalindividu amceandtemPircofsiklei–llDsiwagenreosatsicses(sLeAdPth-Dro;ugNhehthriengL,eaNrneihnrginAg,ccBormunpil,ish&- vceornytroflr,eqaunedntaltyt)a.chTmheentf)ircsotmthbrienee tsoubmscaakleesa(tiontiatilatpivroet,ecsteilvfe-
he Randolph,1992),whichwaschosenbythecommunitybecauseit factors score (TPF), in which bigger numbers signal greater
ch
yt
Psof lined up with the states’ Early Learning Performance Standards, socio-emotional strengths. The behavior problems subscale
anse wasavailableinSpanish(pilotedandstandardizedinthiscommu- stands alone and bigger numbers are indicative of greater be-
cu
erial nity) and English, and was for large-scale use. The LAP-D is a haviorproblems.Samplequestionsfromtheinitiativesubscale
Amson national norm-referenced instrument with strong internal consis- include “starts or organizes play with other children,” whereas
heper tency reliabilities both nationally ((cid:5) (cid:2) .76–.92; Nehring et al., an example item for self-control includes “listens to/respects
ythe 1992)andwithinthelargerMSRPsample((cid:5)(cid:2).93–.95;Winsler others.” For the attachment subscale, an example includes “re-
bt
pyrightedsolelyfor ewgtueaaglu.es,e2(dc0o0thm8r)pe.erTeshhueebnLssciAoanlPe-saD:ncdiosngaanmisttiiavnnegd)(a,mradanitzdcehdfiinndgeiramencotdtaocsrosu(ewsnstrmiintiegnn)g,tlaaannndd- sodpfreontnh.d”esIbpteoshshiatovivuioeldrlysbtceoalanedoutietletdmctoshmaitfnoctrhltuewdiehnseten“rfunipaglshetctso,”nwasiintshdteanoncthyeexrwamicthhpiillne-
coed manipulation).TheLAP-Disintendedforchildrenbetween30and this community sample is strong—teacher TPF (cid:2) .94, teacher
mentisintend 7te2acmheornathtsthoefbeaggiennainndg (wTaims ead1m[iTn1is]t—ereSdepbteymbcheril/dOrcetno’bserp)rea-nKd bcoehnacverinosr c(cid:2)onc.7e1rns(C(cid:2)ran.8e,0;Mpianrceinct,T&PFW(cid:2)ins.l9e1r,, p2a0r1e1n)t.bFeuhratvhieorr,
docucleis ednedmi(cTyimeaer.2A[lTth2o]u—ghAtperaicl/hMerasya)domfinthisetecrheidldtrheenL’sA4P--yDea,ri-towldasancoa-t there are no differences in the reliability of these scales as a
hisarti teacher report of children’s academic skills; rather, it was direct functionofthelanguageinwhichtheDECAwascompletedor
Ts between Latino and Black children (Crane et al., 2011); thus,
hi child assessments. Spanish and English versions of the LAP-D
T theDECAhasstrongreliabilityforethnicallyandlinguistically
wereavailable,bothofwhichhavedemonstratedstrongtest–retest
diverse children, those sampled within this study.
reliability (.93–.97; Hardin, Peisner-Feinberg, & Weeks, 2005).
Children’steachersdeterminedthelanguageofassessmentaccord-
ing to children’s strongest language, and in this sample, 12% of
Results
childrencompletedtheLAP-DinSpanishatT1,whereasroughly
8% completed Spanish assessments at T2. Note, that for results
reported in this study (both LAP-D and DECA), we use national Analytic Plan
percentilescorestoincreaseinterpretabilityofourfindingsandto
compare children relative to where they rank nationally to other Intraclasscorrelations(ICCs)forourvariablesofinterest,indi-
childrenofthesameage. cating the percentage of variance in outcomes that varied as a
As a precaution, we conducted analyses to determine whether function of the school the child attended, were for the most part
assessmentlanguagematteredforchildren’sperformance,whether below .10; however, as can be expected, for teacher-rated out-
assessment language varied by curriculum, and whether the cur- comes(DECAsocialskillsandbehavioralconcerns)itwashigher
6 ANSARIANDWINSLER
(ICCs(cid:2).13–.18).3Accordingly,weranallanalysesinMplus7.1 yses modeling program effects on fall scores. Table 2 shows
(Muthén&Muthén,2013)usingaschool-levelclusteringvariable children’sT1andT2meanpercentilescoresseparatelybycurric-
to properly estimate standard errors for nested data (TYPE (cid:2) ulumandethnicity(forthosewithcompletedata),whereasTables
COMPLEX). Within each cohort, most centers had only one or 3 and 4 show the unstandardized nested/imputed model coeffi-
two classrooms sampled, and due to a greater degree of missing cients; thus, there are some minor differences across these esti-
dataattheteacher/classroomlevel,weonlyconductedatwo-level mates, but again, all substantive findings are the same. Note,
(children nested within schools) model. Also, although teachers becausethesewerenationallynormedpercentilescores,allparam-
administeredtheLAP-D,weseeverylittlevariationacrossteach- eter estimates represent where children scored compared to their
ers.Ifassessmentintegrityandvalidityofthedataobtainedwere same-aged peers nationally (i.e., scoring at the 50th percentile is
aconcern,wewouldexpectlargerICCs(Guo,2005). the national average). For the most part, no differences emerged
Structural equation modeling was conducted for each child for children’s cognitive or language skills; however, during the
outcome. A total of three models were tested (LAP-D, DECA– fall, children in Montessori scored lower on assessments of fine
Teacher, DECA–Parent), controlling for children’s fall scores to motor skills (B (cid:2) (cid:6)5.99, p (cid:2) .036). Teachers also reported that
publishers.natedbroadly. ewpscxrieoatdhrmeicsientto(heerns.cgich.o,iiftlyTdT,r1e1:cnul’aarsnrnidggcuauTialna2gs,ec,afhrnfoiidlnmdeaonmthuoeitnctootbermer,gaeccisnot.ingoFinnnuigtribtvheteote)wrt,weheceenhreieltndhcdreoerontrwf’esloyafetaeaaldsrl wlcpohahwireleedrdrereatsnosocpcinihaarilMledsnkrotesinlntlreseisnp(sBoocrrot(cid:2)iendev(cid:6)xethhn2iatb.it8oic5tneh,adiplldgp(cid:2)rrreeona.g0trie0nar4mtb)hsetehh(sBaaenvp(cid:2)itorhor5egpi.r4rra0ocm,boslpnevem(cid:2)xensh.ti0ciboo3intm2ea)d-l,
sallieddissemi adhsaotoawdefeoresrticcmhhaiilltddiorenonu’(tsFcoIsMmprLeisn),gutshsicenogprerfesu.flelArrilenldfommrmoedatehtliosodnadomdvareexrsilsmiesudtwmmislieisksaeinnligd- proCgoragmnitpiveeerss.kills. We next examined children’s gains in cog-
ite nitiveskillsforMontessoriandconventionalprograms.Note,for
ofob pairwisedeletion;however,wedidnotimputebinaryvariablesdue allchildoutcomes,wecontrolledforchildren’sincomingskillsat
oneott toconcernsintheliteraturewithbinaryimputation(Schafer,1997; thebeginningoftheyear(seeTable3forcoefficients);therefore,
orisn Schafer & Olsen, 1998). As part of the imputation, we also resultsareexaminingchangesinchildren’sschoolreadinessskills
ciationerand rmeqenuti,readndthtahtercehfioldrer,enchhiladvreenatwlheoaswteorneempirses-inogrdpaotast-attebstotahssteimsse- tehffreocutgfhooruettthhneicpirtey-k(Bin(cid:2)der0g.a0r5t,enpy(cid:2)ea.r9.7A0)lthoorucguhrritchuelrae(wBa(cid:2)sn(cid:6)om1.6ai5n,
ologicalAssoindividualus pLDwoAEiitnhPCt-AsDan,w,dnnerw(cid:2)e(cid:2)it1nh4,oo7,tu90t69in5)Fc.;IlAMtuedsaLecadh(feliuirns-rtrtwhathteieserdespeDrdeaeEcnlaCeautAlityoi,osnen)ns,,(cid:2)wa(enexd9cr9alt0uhn;demepdsaourdbecenhslttisa-ldrnbartoteievntdhe: (pdpBerom(cid:2)(cid:2)goran(cid:6).ms6t12sr1a6t.b)e8,ed1g,tahcpneor(cid:2)getnhi.etw0iv0aye0se)a.garAaiwsnCsicut;ahrnrhictobhuweeluesmvleoeewrn,(cid:7)eisnLtaEFtciitonghgounnsriceitiiit1nvy,eaMilnsloktcenihrltlaieslcsdtsibrooeurnnti
he findingswerethesameacrossbothsetsofanalyses(non-imputed
ycth exhibitedthegreatestgains,andbytheendoftheyear,theyscored
Psof estimatesareavailableuponrequest).Finally,allofourmodelsfit similarlytotheirpeersinmoreconventionalprograms.Incontrast,
ne the data well compared to recommendations by Hu and Bentler
caus Black children in Montessori programs demonstrated the least
merinal (1998). gains over time, and by the end of the year, they scored 5–10
eAerso percentile points lower than their peers. To provide an easily
ythhep Preliminary Analyses interpretable effect size metric for these interaction effects, we
bt conductedCohen’sdestimateswiththeunivariategainscoresthat
yrightedolelyfor iwmeAarettetlmryiits3ios8in%nga—nTad2leydpsaeetnsa.dfinoWgr teohnefirLssuAtbePsxc-aDamle()innae(cid:2)nddw2D,h5eE5tC5h–eAr2,c(6ph4ai5lrd,ernaetpn:pnwroh(cid:2)xo- csuogmgpeasrtethtahtefdoirffLearteinncoess,tihnesgeaianrseancorno-stsrivthiaelfgoauirnsgr(oinutpesra.cRtieosnuldtss
iscopndeds T3,167s8c,or1e8s%c;otmeapcahreedr:tno(cid:2)ch3il,d3r4e8n,w25it%h)owutecroemdeiffdearteantatinbotetrhmtsimoef ahroowuenvder0,.t4h3e–b0e.n5e2f,itdseopfebnediinngginoncocnovnetnrtaisotn).alFporrogBralamcskwcahsilsdmreanll,
entnte points. Results suggest that children who had complete LAP-D (interactiond(cid:2)0.14).
mi
docucleis a2s1s3e.s7s5m,epn(cid:2)ts.w00er0e.WlesesalliskoelfyoutnodbtehaLtacthinilod,re(cid:3)n2(w1,erNem(cid:2)or1e3l,i7k4e5ly) (cid:2)to finLdaangsuigangieficsaknitllsm.ainFoerffcehcitldfroern’csurlraincguuluamge(sBki(cid:2)lls,(cid:6)w2e.8d8i,dpn(cid:2)ot
hisarti be missing LAP-D data, (cid:3)2(1, N (cid:2) 13,745) (cid:2) 21.19, p (cid:2) .000; .432), but there was a main effect for ethnicity (B (cid:2) 4.18, p (cid:2)
This teacher-ratedDECAdata,(cid:3)2(1,N(cid:2)13,745)(cid:2)45.85,p(cid:2).000; .005);however,notethefollowingCurriculum(cid:7)Ethnicityinter-
T and parent-rated DECA data, (cid:3)2(1, N (cid:2) 13,745) (cid:2) 75.73, p (cid:2) action (B (cid:2) (cid:6)9.03, p (cid:2) .013). Specifically, Latinos attending
.000,whenenrolledinMontessoriprogramscomparedtochildren Montessori programs began the year scoring well below national
attendingmoreconventionalpre-Kprograms.Tomakesureattri- averages(25thpercentile)butdemonstratedthegreatestlanguage
tion/systematicnon-responsewasnotbiasingourresults,wealso gains (regardless of assessment language–English or Spanish)
conducted a series of ANOVAs at both T1 and T2 using all comparedtoallgroups,andbytheendoftheyear,theyexhibited
possiblechildrenwithdataateachtimepointandfoundthesame language skills at the 50th percentile, which was comparable to
pattern in each case as the nested models below. Further, chil- theirLatinopeersinmoreconventionalprogramswhohadbegun
dren’sschoolreadinessscoreswerecomparableforchildrenwith the year with a greater language skill-set (see Figure 2). Further,
T1 data only versus children who had assessments at both time
points.
3Intraclasscorrelationswereasfollows:Cognition,.08;Language,.09;
Fall scores. To determine whether the mean differences be-
Fine Motor, .07; Parent-Rated Social Skills, .01; Parent-Rated Behavior
tweenthetwogroups(MontessoriandConventional)weresignif- Concerns, .01; Teacher-Rated Social Skills, .13; and Teacher-Rated Be-
icantlydifferentatthebeginningoftheyear,weconductedanal- haviorConcerns,.18.
MONTESSORIPRE-KPROGRAMS 7
Table2
LAP-DandDECAMeanPercentileScores(andStandardDeviations)intheFallandSpringfor
BlackandLatinoChildreninMontessoriandConventionalPrograms
Montessori(M) Conventional(C)
T1 T2 T1 T2
Measure M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
LAP-D
Cognitiveskills
Overall(n (cid:2)161,n (cid:2)3,512) 37.70(27.98) 58.06(27.91) 43.51(29.43) 62.82(28.53)
M C
Latino(n (cid:2)54,n (cid:2)1,774) 35.09(26.61) 65.13(28.24) 42.33(29.84) 61.06(29.10)
M C
Black(n (cid:2)107,n (cid:2)1,738) 39.02(28.67) 54.50(27.18) 44.72(29.84) 64.62(27.83)
M C
Languageskills
y. Overall 28.54(24.30) 49.63(27.46) 32.94(28.00) 54.22(30.46)
s.adl Latino 22.52(19.64) 51.43(28.84) 30.26(26.80) 49.69(29.92)
herbro Black 31.28(25.78) 48.81(26.92) 35.70(28.95) 58.90(30.31)
dpublisminated FinOLeavtmeinroaotlolrskills 3369..2444((2247..9790)) 5645..3108((2275..7770)) 4497..5663((3300..3065)) 6624..7522((2276..7233))
salliedisse DECBAl–aTckeacher 35.19(28.85) 49.46(27.40) 45.65(30.55) 60.87(28.08)
ite Socialskills
oneofnottob LBOalvateicnrkaol(l(nn(nMM(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)21943636,2,n,nnCC(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)44,80,8,080516)1)) 445970...434727(((222637...316697))) 565927...396578(((222536...431065))) 554019...416969(((222777...649412))) 665129...180117(((222768...675001)))
oris BehaviorcoMncerns C
ciationerand OLavteinraoll 5409..5135((2236..8353)) 4492..9440((2265..5606)) 4413..2581((2287..0497)) 4328..6361((2298..1006))
sous Black 50.44(27.43) 53.40(26.20) 46.18(28.58) 47.89(29.47)
s
Aal DECA–Parent
aldu Socialskills
Psychologicoftheindivi BeLBOhaalvatveicinrkoaorl(l(ncn(oMnMnMc(cid:2)(cid:2)e(cid:2)rn11s932528,3,n,nCnCC(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)34,72,3,051415)9)) 444444...768847(((333101...064992))) 454807...987957(((333000...796230))) 444777...214761(((333101...047035))) 555120...894990(((333001...946817)))
ne Overall 67.15(30.59) 65.45(28.55) 66.71(29.30) 65.11(29.69)
as
cu Latino 63.17(31.74) 64.96(30.31) 65.88(29.03) 63.94(29.68)
erial Black 69.75(29.61) 65.77(27.41) 67.82(29.63) 66.69(29.63)
mn
Aso
eer Note. MeansarewithoutaddressingmissingdataandonlyincludechildrenwhohadbothTime1(T1)and
byththep ThoimodeA2s(sTe2ss)mdeantat..LAP-D(cid:2)LearningAccomplishmentProfile–Diagnostic;DECA(cid:2)DevereuxEarlyChild-
yrightedolelyfor
ps
coed BlackchildreninMontessoriandLatinochildreninconventional Teacher-rated social skills. For the DECA total-protective
isnd programsappeartomaketheleastlanguagegains.Again,wefind factorsscoredbyteachers,wefoundamaineffectforethnicity
entnte thatthebenefitsofMontessoriforLatinosaremodest(interaction (B (cid:2) (cid:6)2.99, p (cid:2) .016), suggesting that Latino children, ac-
mi
docucleis dinscaornovuenndti0o.n2a2l–p0r.o4g5r)a,mbustthfoanrBinlaMckonctheislsdoreriny,itehledebdenmeuficthosfmbaelilnegr ccoormdpinagretdottoeatchheeirrs,Bdlaecmkopnesterraste(dsegereTaatebrlega4infsorincosoecffiiacliesnktisll)s.
hisarti benefits(interactiond(cid:2)0.19). However, there was no evidence for either a main effect for
This Fine motor skills. For fine motor skills, there was no main curricula (B (cid:2) (cid:6)0.60, p (cid:2) .802) or a Curriculum (cid:7) Ethnicity
T
effect for curriculum (B (cid:2) (cid:6)0.96, p (cid:2) .763), but there was a interaction (B (cid:2) (cid:6)3.91, p (cid:2) .414; see Figure 4).
significantmaineffectforethnicity(B(cid:2)(cid:6)3.23,p(cid:2).003)anda Teacher-ratedbehavioralconcerns. Althoughtherewasno
Curriculum (cid:7) Ethnicity interaction (B (cid:2) (cid:6)11.57, p (cid:2) .010). maineffectforcurriculum(B(cid:2)2.17,p(cid:2).173),therewasamain
Similar to other pre-academic domains, Latino children in Mon- effect for ethnicity (B (cid:2) 6.69, p (cid:2) .000) and a Curriculum (cid:7)
tessoriprogramsdemonstratedthegreatestmotorgainsandexhib- Ethnicity interaction (B (cid:2) 3.98, p (cid:2) .044). Results indicate that
ited similar abilities at T2 as their peers in more conventional Blackchildren,regardlessofcurriculum,showedaslightincrease
programs,whostartedtheyearwiththehighestmotorskills(see in problem behaviors, whereas Latino children in conventional
Figure 3). In contrast, by the end of the year, Black children in High/Scopeprogramsexhibitedreducedproblembehaviorsacross
Montessoriwerebehindasmuchas15percentilepointscompared time(seeFigure5).AlthoughLatinochildreninMontessoriclass-
to Latino children in either program. The benefits of Montessori roomsbegantheyearwiththegreatestbehavioralconcerns,they
for Latinos were modest (interaction ds around 0.47–0.52), exhibitedthegreatestimprovement.Effectsizeestimatessuggest
whereas the differences between conventional and Montessori that Latinos demonstrated small-to-moderate improvements in
werenegligibleforBlackchildren(interactiond(cid:2)0.02). Montessori(interactiondsaround0.19–0.43),whereasthediffer-
8 ANSARIANDWINSLER
Table3
UnstandardizedCoefficientsforChildren’sLAP-DOutcomes
LAP-D CognitiveT1 CognitiveT2 LanguageT1 LanguageT2 FinemotorT1 FinemotorT2
Maineffectsmodel(Step1)
Fallassessmentscore 0.49(0.02)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.57(0.02)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.49(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curriculaa (cid:6)5.02(3.20) (cid:6)1.65(3.39) (cid:6)2.68(3.23) (cid:6)2.88(3.66) (cid:6)5.99(2.85)(cid:2) (cid:6)0.96(3.18)
Race/ethnicityb 0.81(1.29) 0.05(1.30) 4.88(1.54)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 4.18(1.49)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)5.30(1.37)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)3.23(1.12)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Interactionmodel(Step2)
Fallassessmentscore 0.49(0.02)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.57(0.02)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.49(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curricula (cid:6)4.65(4.26) 6.48(2.83)(cid:2) (cid:6)3.65(1.92)† 4.83(2.79)† (cid:6)4.36(3.22) 7.11(3.96)†
Race/ethnicity 0.82(1.32) 0.50(1.33) 4.82(1.60)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 4.51(1.53)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)5.21(1.41)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)2.90(1.11)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curricula(cid:7)Ethnicity (cid:6)0.31(5.23) (cid:6)11.81(2.48)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 1.56(4.01) (cid:6)9.03(3.64)(cid:2) (cid:6)2.12(4.91) (cid:6)11.57(4.49)(cid:2)(cid:2)
R2 .01 .29 .01 .32 .01 .34
y. Fitstatistics CFI(cid:2).958,RMSEA(cid:2).072,SRMR(cid:2).062,(cid:3)2(6)(cid:2)331.89,p(cid:4).001
s.adl
dpublisherminatedbro Nca†oLpomtae(cid:4)tp.ina.ro1aS0tati.savnetdh(cid:2)faeiprtdrie(cid:4)nfeder.err0exo5n;r.stR.aM(cid:2)rb(cid:2)eSCpEinoA(cid:4)npv(cid:2)a.e0rne1rtn.oiotohnte(cid:2)-a(cid:2)sml(cid:2)isaep.saLn(cid:4)t-heseaq.r0urn0eai1fnre.egreeAnrrtco.croomfpalpisphrmoxeinmtaPtiroonfi;leS–RDMiaRgn(cid:2)ostsitcan(dLaArdPi-zDed),rnoo(cid:2)t-m8e,7a8n0-s.qTua1re(cid:2)reTsiidmueal.1; T2 (cid:2) Time 2; CFI (cid:2)
salliedisse
eofittobe e0n.0c5e)s.forBlacksacrossprogramswasnegligible(interactiond(cid:2) s(Bee(cid:2)n i(cid:6)n1.F1i5g,upre(cid:2)6,.26th5e)r.e was no evidence for an interaction
onnot Parent-ratedsocialskills. Accordingtoparents,allchildren Parent-rated behavioral concerns. For parent-reported be-
oris show some gains in the area of social skills. Similar to teacher havior problems, there was no main effect for curriculum
ationand reports,wealsofoundamaineffectforethnicity(B(cid:2)(cid:6)2.95,p(cid:2) (B (cid:2) 0.10, p (cid:2) .931), but there was a main effect for ethnici-
cier .000),wherebyLatinochildrendemonstratedlargergainsinsocial ty (B (cid:2) 1.85, p (cid:2) .002) and a Curriculum (cid:7) Ethnicity inter-
os
ssu skills compared to Black children. There was no evidence for a action (B (cid:2) (cid:6)4.09, p (cid:2) .016). As can be seen in Figure 7,
Aal
aldu maineffectforcurriculum(B(cid:2)(cid:6)0.78,p(cid:2).404),andascanbe children generally show stable and/or a slight decrease in be-
ologicindivi
chhe Table4
yt
Psof UnstandardizedCoefficientsforChildren’sDECAOutcomes
ne
as
cu
erial DECA SocialskillsT1 SocialskillsT2 BehaviorT1 BehaviorT2
mn
eAerso DECA–Teacher
hp Maineffectsmodel(Step1)
ythe Fallassessmentscore 0.59(0.02)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.60(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
yrightedbolelyfort IntCReruaacrcreti/iceoutnhlanmaicoidtyebl(Step2) (cid:6)(cid:6)10..3735((41..1881)) (cid:6)(cid:6)02..6909((21..3276))(cid:2) 45..7470((12..2351))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 26..1679((11..5035))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
scopdeds FCaulrlriacsusleassmentscore (cid:6)4.71(5.91) 20..0549((04..0729))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 8.18(2.63)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)00..6500((01..0213))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
mentiinten RCaucrrei/ceuthlani(cid:7)citEythnicity (cid:6)40..9925((71..2866)) (cid:6)(cid:6)23..8931((14..2699))(cid:2) (cid:6)44..9043((13..3307))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 63..5938((11..0794))(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
docucleis RFi2tstatistics .00 CFI(cid:2).990,RMSE.3A7(cid:2).037,SRMR(cid:2).027,(cid:3)2(.20)1(cid:2)36.46,p(cid:4).001 .39
hisarti
This DECA–Parent
T Maineffectsmodel(Step1)
Fallassessmentscore 0.61(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.53(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curricula (cid:6)2.85(0.99)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:6)0.78(0.93) 1.92(1.43) 0.10(1.19)
Race/ethnicity (cid:6)0.45(0.88) (cid:6)2.95(0.62)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 3.13(0.74)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 1.85(0.60)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Interactionmodel(Step2)
Fallassessmentscore 0.61(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.53(0.01)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curricula (cid:6)3.14(2.16) (cid:6)0.10(0.84) (cid:6)0.53(0.85) 2.55(0.95)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Race/ethnicity (cid:6)0.47(0.91) (cid:6)2.89(0.64)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 2.97(0.77)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 2.02(0.62)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
Curricula(cid:7)Ethnicity 0.45(2.66) (cid:6)1.15(1.03) 3.78(1.91)(cid:2) (cid:6)4.09(1.69)(cid:2)
R2 .00 .38 .01 .28
Fitstatistics CFI(cid:2).989,RMSEA(cid:2).061,SRMR(cid:2).021,(cid:3)2(2)(cid:2)92.98,p(cid:4).001
Note. Standarderrorsareinparenthesis.DevereuxEarlyChildhoodAssessment(DECA)–Teacher,n(cid:2)12,755;DECA–Parent,n(cid:2)12,036.T1(cid:2)Time
1;T2(cid:2)Time2;CFI(cid:2)comparativefitindex;RMSEA(cid:2)root-mean-squareerrorofapproximation;SRMR(cid:2)standardizedroot-mean-squareresidual.
aLatinoasthereferent. bConventionalasthereferent.
(cid:2)p(cid:4).05. (cid:2)(cid:2)p(cid:4).01. (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)p(cid:4).001.
MONTESSORIPRE-KPROGRAMS 9
70 70
65 65
e
mance Percentil 45565050 LLBaalattciinnkoo a aat ttM MC mance Percentile 45565050 LLaattiinnoo aatt MC
Perfor 40 Black at C Perfor 40 BBllaacckk aatt MC
35 35
30 30
T1 T2 T1 T2
Time Time
y.
s.adl Figure1. CognitivescoreatTime1(T1)andTime2(T2)forLatinosand Figure3. FinemotorscoreatTime1(T1)andTime2(T2)forLatinos
herbro BlacksatMontessori(M)andConventional(C)programs. andBlacksatMontessori(M)andConventional(C)programs.
s
blied
punat
dmi
salliedisse hdarevniorianl Mcoonncteersnsso;rihopwroegvrearm, asccsohrodwingsotmoepagreanintss,.LEaftfiencotcshiizle- curSreicvuelruamlnaontdabclheiladndouctoconmsisetse.nPtrfiimndarinilgys,ietmiseergnecdouwraigthinrgegthaardtatlol
eofittobe easrotiumnadte0s.0w9e–re0.s2m0a).llforbothBlacksandLatinos(interactionds cskhiillldsrewnhemnaadtetegnadiinnsgipnubalriecasscohfooclopgrnei-tKivep,rolagnragmuasg,er,egaanrddlmesostoorf
onnot curriculum. Specifically, at the beginning of the school year,
oris Discussion children were scoring well below national averages on pre-
ciationerand In this article, we sought to understand differences in low- asccoadreedmaictoasrsaebssomveenthtse,b5u0tthafpteerrc1eynetialre.oTfphreep-Kot,ecnhtiiladlrgenaignesnaecrraolslys
os
ssu income, minority children’s early school experiences and how pre-academic skills when children are enrolled in preschool pro-
alAdual these might relate to children’s gains in areas of pre-academic, gramsarepromisingandconsistentwithpriorstudiesbothwithin
ologicindivi seoarcliyo-eedmuoctaiotinoanl,manoddebleshaavnidorcaulrsrkicilulsla.W(Litihllainrdc,re2a0si0n8g),nucmonbteinrsueodf tmhiosrecogmenmeuranliltyy((GAonrsmarlie&yeWtianls.,le2r0,0250;13M;aWgninussloenreettaal.l,.,22000087))a.nd
ychthe effort is necessary for a better understanding of how children Contrarytosomeofthepriorliterature(Lillard,2012;Lillard&
Psof shouldbetaughttheseearlyskillsandwhethercertaincurriculaare Else-Quest, 2006) and our hypotheses, however, children who
canuse moreeffectivethanothersforcertaingroupsofchildren(Brooks- attendedMontessoriprogramsdidnot(intermsofmaineffectsfor
merinal Gunnetal.,2013;Duncan&Magnuson,2013;Garcia&Jensen, curriculum) exhibit greater gains across pre-academic, social, or
bytheAtheperso 2on0vo0etr9r)e1.c0eS0ipvyeeecdaifrmiscuaalcnlhyd,,etMmodpoainrytie,csaissloauritsteecdnutriirnoicnouvwlaei,rthw4i,nh0i0cm0hincholaarssitsyreoxaoinsmtdesd,lohfwaosr- btliieotehnraaavltuioprreraolgmrsiakgmihllsts.bcTeohmdeupdeairsetcodrettphoaenchcfayilcdtirnethnoauetnrcrhfoiilnlldedrdiennginsinmanotdhreisthcesoanmpvrepionler-
pyrightedsolelyfor iPannecdtotyem,deu2c0ca0ot7mio).mnAcuucnrcirtoiiecrdsuiln(aCgbloyys,seewxnaetmineioxn,tien2ng0dt0ht5he;esLclhiiltoleaorraldtru,er2aed0io1nn2e;sesWagrlaaylisnchsao&ref an$te3tie0gn,h0db0eo0dr;hTUoi.otSlde.s-C1(e7pn5rs%ougsrBealmuigrseibaalune,d2foc0ra1m0F)eR.NLfr,ootmienctlhooamwte-thinercaponrmgieoe:r,l$mi2tei1nr,ao0tr0ui0trye-
coed low-income, Black and Latino children enrolled in Montessori has generally not examined minority children’s early learning
sd
mentiinten pHriogghr/aSmcospceomfrapmareewdotorkmwoirtehcaonlivteernatcioynsaulppprlee-mKepnrto.gramsusinga
docucleis 70
ThisThisarti 6605 ntile 6605
Performance Percentile 23344555050505 LLBBaallaattcciinnkkoo aa aatt ttMC MC Performance Perce 3445550505 LLBBaallaattcciinnkkoo aa aatt ttMC MC
20 30
15 T1 T2
T1 T2 Time
Time
Figure 4. Teacher-rated total protective factor score (social skills) at
Figure2. LanguagescoreatTime1(T1)andTime2(T2)forLatinosand Time1(T1)andTime2(T2)forLatinosandBlacksatMontessori(M)and
BlacksatMontessori(M)andConventional(C)programs. Conventional(C)programs.