Head Start: Curriculum Use and Individual Child Assessment in	 
Cognitive and Language Development (12-SEP-03, GAO-03-1049).	 
                                                                 
To enhance Head Start's contribution to the school readiness of  
children from low-income families, the 1998 amendments to the	 
Head Start Act provided for updating the Head Start performance  
standards to ensure that when children leave the program, they	 
have the basic skills needed to start school. Head Start's	 
performance standards for education and early childhood 	 
development require that the programs' curricula support each	 
child's cognitive and language development, including emergent	 
literacy skills. In preschool children, cognitive and language	 
development refers to the fundamental abilities needed to reason 
and to speak a language. Skills in emergent literacy are the	 
precursors to reading, such as learning the letters of the	 
alphabet. The curriculum Head Start programs use must meet the	 
definition for a written curriculum in Head Start's performance  
standards. Programs have the option of developing their own	 
curriculum, using a curriculum developed locally or by the state 
education agency, and adopting or adapting a model developed by  
an educational publisher. Programs also may use teacher mentoring
and individual child assessment to help implement the curriculum.
As reauthorization of Head Start approached, Congress asked us to
answer questions about Head Start programs' efforts to prepare	 
children for school: (1) to what extent have Head Start programs 
made progress in meeting performance standards for cognitive and 
language development since they took effect in January 1998? (2) 
to what extent has local Head Start programs' use of curricula	 
changed since the performance standards for children's cognitive 
and language development were issued? (3) to what extent have	 
local Head Start programs used teacher mentoring and individual  
child assessments to support curriculum planning?		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1049					        
    ACCNO:   A08419						        
  TITLE:     Head Start: Curriculum Use and Individual Child	      
Assessment in Cognitive and Language Development		 
     DATE:   09/12/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for education					 
	     Disadvantaged persons				 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Preschool education				 
	     Children						 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Head Start Program 				 
	     HHS Family and Child Experiences Survey		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-1049

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2003 HEAD START Curriculum Use and Individual Child Assessment
in Cognitive and Language Development

GAO- 03- 1049

Page i GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start Letter 1 Appendix I Congressional Briefing
Slides: Head Start 5

Abbreviations

FACES Family and Child Experiences Survey HHS Department of Health and
Human Services Contents

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

September 12, 2003 The Honorable George Miller Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce House of Representatives

The Honorable Dale E. Kildee Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Education Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives

To enhance Head Start*s contribution to the school readiness of children
from low- income families, the 1998 amendments to the Head Start Act
provided for updating the Head Start performance standards to ensure that
when children leave the program, they have the basic skills needed to
start school. 1 Head Start*s performance standards for education and early

childhood development require that the programs* curricula support each
child*s cognitive and language development, including emergent literacy
skills. In preschool children, cognitive and language development refers
to the fundamental abilities needed to reason and to speak a language.
Skills in emergent literacy are the precursors to reading, such as
learning the

letters of the alphabet. The curriculum Head Start programs use must meet
the definition for a written curriculum in Head Start*s performance
standards. Programs have the option of developing their own curriculum,
using a curriculum developed locally or by the state education agency, and
adopting or adapting a model developed by an educational publisher.

Programs also may use teacher mentoring and individual child assessment to
help implement the curriculum. As reauthorization of Head Start
approached, you asked us to answer

these questions about Head Start programs* efforts to prepare children for
school:

1 Pub. L. 105- 285, Title I, Sec. 108 (amending sec. 641A of the Head
Start Act). United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

1. To what extent have Head Start programs made progress in meeting
performance standards for cognitive and language development since they
took effect in January 1998?

2. To what extent has local Head Start programs* use of curricula changed
since the performance standards for children*s cognitive and language
development were issued?

3. To what extent have local Head Start programs used teacher mentoring
and individual child assessments to support curriculum planning?

To determine what progress has been made in meeting the new standards, we
used data from Head Start*s compliance reviews. We analyzed the percentage
of Head Start programs that met overall performance standards for
curriculum and the percentage that met seven specific performance
standards for cognitive and language development. To examine local Head
Start programs* use of curricula, mentoring, and individual child
assessments, we analyzed data from the Department of Health and Human
Services* (HHS) Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). FACES is a
series of longitudinal surveys of nationally representative samples of
Head Start children. 2 We used data from the spring 1998 and fall 2000
teacher interviews, which contained information about types of Head Start
curricula and classroom activities, the percentage of teachers who
received mentoring visits, the percentage of Head Start children who
received individual child assessments and how teachers used the assessment
information. Although limitations in the FACES data did not allow us to
determine change in curricula and classroom activities over time, the data
did permit us to describe Head Start curricula and classroom activities at
two points in time. Information on mentoring and individual child
assessment was available only for fall 2000. We also interviewed officials
in 9 of 10 HHS regional offices about Head Start programs* curriculum
practices and analyzed HHS* 2002 Program Information Report data on
curricula. The Program Information Report contains basic information about
Head Start programs* operating characteristics and services. All Head
Start and Early Head Start programs

2 Nicholas Zill, et al., Head Start FACES (2000): A Whole- Child
Perspective on Program Performance, Fourth Progress Report, A report
prepared for Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,
Department of Health and Human Services, May 2003, provides additional
details about the FACES sample design.

Page 3 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

are required to submit data for the Program Information Report annually.
We conducted our work between February and June 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided a briefing
on the results of our work to staff of the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce on May 15, 2003. We provided additional information in a
second briefing on June 6, 2003. This report formally conveys the
information provided during those briefings.

In summary, we found that data from Head Start compliance reviews
conducted during 2000- 02 indicated that most programs met performance
standards for overall curriculum and for cognitive and language
development. Of all 1,532 programs in HHS*s 10 regions, HHS determined
that the highest percent found out of compliance with any one of seven
specific performance standards for cognitive and language development

was 10 percent. Among the programs cited for compliance issues related to
these standards, the areas most in need of improvement included (1) using
classroom activities and materials that were sufficiently adapted to each
child*s developmental level and (2) using continuous observation and
assessment to support each child*s instruction in cognitive and literacy
skills.

For the most part, Head Start teachers reported that children were in
programs that used a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula; in
1998 and 2000, the largest percentages were in programs that used either

High Scope or Creative Curriculum. Different methodologies for each survey
precluded making comparisons over time. In 2000, children were more likely
to listen to stories for which they see print, to learn about
prepositions, new words, the conventions of print and letters, and to
retell stories on a daily or almost daily basis, than to experience other
language development activities, such as working on phonics, writing their
name, or learning about rhyming words and word families.

Of those who had a mentor, teachers of about two- thirds of Head Start
children received mentoring visits, weekly or bi- weekly. In 2000,
teachers of an estimated 78 percent of Head Start children used individual
assessments in their small group instruction and in overall curriculum
planning. Almost 90 percent of Head Start children received individual
assessments in cognitive and language development. About half were
assessed in mathematics and emergent literacy. The children received
individual assessments at least once a year.

Page 4 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS
indicated that it had no general comments but provided written technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees
and other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. This report will also be available on GAO*s Web site at
http:// www. gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me or Betty Ward- Zukerman at (202) 512- 7215. Sara Edmondson, Luann Moy,
Christopher Moriarity, and Elsie Picyk also made key contributions to this
report.

Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 5 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Briefing for Congressional Requesters May 15, and June 6, 2003

HEAD START: Curriculum Use and Individual Child Assessment in Cognitive
and Language Development

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 6 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

2

Introduction

The 1998 amendments to the Head Start Act provided for updating
performance standards to ensure that Head Start children leave the program
ready for school. Head Start*s performance standards for education and
early childhood development require that programs* curricula support each
child*s cognitive and language development, including emergent literacy
skills. 1

In preschool children, cognitive and language development refer to
advances in basic abilities in thinking and speaking. Skills in emergent
literacy are the precursors to reading, such as learning the letters of
the alphabet. As reauthorization of Head Start approached, you asked us to
determine the progress of local Head Start programs in meeting the
performance standards for children*s cognitive and language development
and to describe their use of curricula, mentoring for teachers, and child
assessments to foster children*s

development. 1 Pub. L. 105- 285, Title I, Sec. 108 (amending sec. 641A of
the Head Start Act).

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 7 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

3

Key Questions

1. To what extent have Head Start programs made progress in meeting
performance standards for cognitive and language development since they
took effect in January 1998?

2. To what extent has local Head Start programs* use of curricula changed
since the performance standards for children*s cognitive and language
development were issued?

3. To what extent have local Head Start programs used teacher mentoring
and individual child assessments to support curriculum planning?

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 8 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

4

Scope and Methodology

We determined what progress has been made in meeting the new standards by
analyzing data from the Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System (HSMTS),
an automated database that quantifies and tabulates the results of Head
Start on- site compliance reviews.

We examined local Head Start programs* use of curricula and individual
child assessment practices by:

 Analyzing data from the Department of Health and Human Services* (HHS)
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). FACES is a series of
longitudinal surveys of nationally representative samples of Head Start
children. Employing multiple data collection instruments, the survey
includes assessments of children, interviews with their parents,
observation of classrooms, and interviews with teachers. We used data from
the spring 1998 and fall 2000 teacher interviews, which contained
information about curriculum use, teachers, and child assessment
practices.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 9 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

5

Scope and Methodology (continued)

 Producing weighted estimates from the 1998 and 2000 FACES teacher
interview data using child weights developed by the FACES project team. A
weight is the factor we used to make estimates for the Head Start child
population from the FACES sample data. Because we were analyzing data for
both 1998 and 2000, we used the same type of weights for both years.

 Obtaining margins of error for estimates using FACES data at the 95
percent confidence level.

 Interviewing officials responsible for Head Start compliance reviews in
9 of HHS*s 10 regional offices about Head Start programs* curriculum
practices.  Analyzing HHS*s 2002 Program Information Report data
regarding use of curricula and child assessment instruments. We conducted
our work between February and June 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 10 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

6

Scope and Methodology (continued)

Limitations  We did not review Head Start*s performance standards, apart
from identifying

those related to cognitive and language development, or independently
assess compliance by Head Start programs.

 Using existing administrative and FACES data, our review provides
information about the Head Start program at the national level, focusing
on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our review does not examine
Head Start programs for migrants, Native Americans, or the Early Head
Start program.

 The FACES samples were designed to be nationally representative of Head
Start children. Teachers were included in the survey sample if they were
teachers of sampled children, yielding a probability sample. However,
because the probability sample of teachers that resulted also yielded high
standard errors, our estimates from the teacher interview data were less
precise than would have been true had the sample been designed primarily
to collect data about teachers.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 11 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

7

Summary of Results

 Data from Head Start compliance reviews indicated that most programs met
performance standards for overall curriculum and for seven specific
standards for cognitive and language development.

 For the most part, Head Start children were in programs that used a
specific curriculum or combinations of curricula; in 1998 and 2000, the
largest percentages of Head Start children were in programs that used
either High Scope or Creative Curriculum. However, because the surveys in
each time period used different methodologies, we could not determine if
these percentages represented an actual change over time. The FACES data
indicated that, in each time period, most Head Start children had teachers
who reported offering basic cognitive or language development activities
daily or almost daily, but provided no additional information on how the
curricula were implemented.

 Of those who had a mentor, teachers for about two- thirds of Head Start
children reported being observed by a mentor, once every week or every 2
weeks. Teachers of an estimated 78 percent of Head Start children reported
using information from individual assessments for small group instruction
and in overall curriculum planning. Almost 90 percent of Head Start
children were assessed in cognitive and language development; about half
were assessed in mathematics and emergent literacy.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 12 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

8

Background

 Head Start programs are administered locally but must comply with
federal performance standards in a number of categories, such as education
and early childhood development, child health and safety, and family and
community partnerships. The standards for education and early childhood
development pertain to curriculum and are designed to foster school
readiness in all areas of social competence, including social, emotional,
and physical, as well as cognitive. Our review focused on seven of the
curriculum standards for children*s cognitive and language development.

 HHS regional offices make on- site inspections to monitor programs*
performance in meeting all performance standards. Inspection teams monitor
approximately one- third of the programs each year.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 13 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

9

Background (continued)

 Head Start*s performance standards for cognitive and language
development are based on concepts, such as emergent literacy, that have
their roots in behavioral and social science research on child
development:

 Cognitive development refers to advances in a child*s ability to develop
ideas and theories about how things work, that is, the general ability to
reason.

 Language development refers to a child*s progress in learning language,
including grammar, the sounds of speech and vocabulary.

 Emergent literacy refers to the theory that developing the ability to
read begins early in a child*s life, rather than when a child starts
school. It includes the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are
considered forerunners to reading and writing, including recognizing the
names of the letters of the alphabet, scribbling,

recognizing that the print in books is what is read, paying attention to
the sounds in words, and connecting stories to life experiences. 2 2 Since
1998, the National Research Council has examined the research on early
childhood learning and development in several comprehensive reviews that
discuss these concepts in greater detail. National Research Council,
Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children's Reading Success,
Committee on Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, M. S.
Burns, P. Griffin, and C. E. Snow, eds. (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999); National Research Council, How People Learn: Mind, Brain,
Experience, School- Expanded Edition, Committee on Developments in the
Science of Learning, J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds.
(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2001); and National Research
Council, Eager to Learn, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, B. T.
Bowman, M. S. Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, eds. (Washington, D. C.:
National Academy Press, 2001).

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 14 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Background

10

Head Start Performance Standards for Cognitive and Language Development

 Standard 1304.21 (a) (4)- Grantee and delegate agencies must provide for
the development of each child*s cognitive and language skills by

(i) using a variety of strategies, (ii) providing for creative self-
expression, (iii) promoting interaction and conversation with others, and
(iv) providing materials and activities adapted to each child.  Standard
1304.21 (c) (1)- Grantee and delegate agencies, in collaboration with the
parents, must implement a curriculum to

(i) support each child*s individual pattern of development and learning
and (ii) develop each child's cognitive, literacy, and mathematical
skills.

Source: GAO analysis of Head Start performance standards described in HHS,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Program
Regulations and Program Guidance for Parts 1304 and 1308, February 2001.
See also 45 CFR, Part 1304. 21.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 15 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Background

11

Head Start Performance Standards for Cognitive and Language Development
(continued)

 Standard 1304.21 (c) (2)- Staff must use a variety of strategies to
promote and support children*s learning and developmental progress based
on the observation and ongoing assessment of each child.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 16 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

12

Background (continued)

 The curriculum Head Start programs use must meet the definition for
curriculum in Head Start performance standards. 3 Programs may develop
their own curriculum, adopt, or adapt any existing package. Two widely
used existing curricula are High Scope and Creative Curriculum.

 Head Start*s performance standards define curriculum as a written plan
that includes: (1) goals for children*s development and learning, (2) the
experiences through which children will achieve the goals, (3) what staff
and parents do to help children achieve the goals, and (4) the materials
needed to support the

implementation of the curriculum. 3 See 45 CFR 1304. 3( a)( 5).

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 17 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Background

13

Key Features of Two Curricula- High Scope and Creative Curriculum

Guides teachers in developing a relationship with the child*s family.
Encourages parent participation in the classroom and fosters home- school
communication. Parent involvement

Includes a Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for ages 3- 5,
which defines and measures a sequence of steps a child is expected to take
toward milestones in socioemotional, physical, cognitive, and language
development. Using the Child Observation Record, a teacher or observer

assesses a child*s behavior in 6 areas: initiative, social relations,
creative representation, music and movement, language and literacy, and
logic and mathematics. Assessment

Five major areas: how children develop and learn, the learning
environment, the content areas children learn, the teacher*s role, and the
family*s role. Six content areas: literary, math, science, social studies,
arts, technology, and the process skills children use to learn the
content. Eleven classroom interest areas: blocks, dramatic play, toys and
games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and movement,
cooking, computers, and outdoors. Fifty- eight key experiences for
preschool children grouped into 10 categories: creative representation,
language and literacy, initiative and social relations, movement, music,
classification,

seriation, number, space, and time. Curriculum framework

Balances teacher- directed and child- initiated learning, emphasizing
responding to children*s learning styles and building on their interests.
Encourages children to pursue their own interests

and goals. Teaching strategies balance child and adult initiation.
Teaching and learning theory

Creative Curriculum High Scope Curriculum features

Sources: GAO summary of curriculum publishers* documentation.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 18 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 1

14

Overall, HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with Curriculum Standards

 By 2002, HHS had determined that at least 45 percent of all 1,532
programs in HHS*s 10 regions were rated as having *no findings* in
curriculum- related areas during on- site inspections, meaning that the
programs were in full compliance with Head Start*s overall performance
standards for curriculum. 5 The remaining programs had at least one
finding.

 In 2002, HHS found that no more than 10 percent of the programs reviewed
in any geographic region that year had serious or significant areas of
noncompliance with overall standards for curriculum. 5 Head Start
inspection teams used the following criteria to determine compliance
findings: *No findings* means that a program was in full compliance.
*Findings* means that a program was out of compliance in at least one
area. *Substantial findings* means that a program had serious or
significant areas of noncompliance..

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 19 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 1

15

Overall, HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with Curriculum Standards
(continued)

 Three percent of the programs reviewed in 2002 were rated deficient with
regard to the overall performance standards for curriculum. 6

 Deficiencies must be corrected immediately or within a year, pursuant to
a written quality improvement plan.

 Deficiencies not corrected within the specified time frame will lead to
termination of the grant or denial of refunding. 6 Head Start regulations
define a deficiency in 45 CFR 1304.3( a)( 6). Any determination of
*substantial findings* could potentially lead to a designation of
deficiency. Thus, the 3 percent of programs rated deficient in 2002 may
have included some of those with substantial findings. However,
information on the reasons for the deficiency ratings was not available.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 20 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 1

16

HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with Cognitive and Language
Development Standards

 Of the 1,532 programs reviewed during 2000- 02, HHS determined that the
highest percent found out of compliance with any one of the seven specific
performance standards for cognitive and language development was 10
percent.

 Programs were found out of compliance most often for:  not using
classroom activities and materials sufficiently adapted to children*s
varied development and

 not making continuous observation and assessment of each child*s
progress.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 21 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

17

Head Start Children Were in Programs That Used a Specific Curriculum

The FACES data did not allow us to determine change over time, but did
permit us to describe Head Start curricula at two points in time.  In
large part, Head Start teachers reported that children were in programs
that used a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula. In 1998, an

estimated 54 percent of Head Start children were in programs that used
either High Scope or Creative Curriculum, while in 2000, an estimated 58
percent of the children were in programs that used one or the other
curriculum. However, because the surveys in each time period used
different methodologies, we could not determine if these percentages
represented an actual change.  In each time period, more than 40 percent
of the children were in classes that used other curricula or combinations
of curricula. 7 In 1998, some combinations included High Scope and
Creative Curriculum.

7 HHS*s Administration for Children and Families has issued Head Start
FACES (2000): A Whole- Child Perspective on Program Performance, Fourth
Progress Report,

which includes analyses of Head Start curricula that were beyond the scope
of this study. See http:// www. acf. hhs. gov/ programs/ core/ ongoing_
research/ faces/ faces_ intro. html.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 22 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

18 Sources: 1998 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The survey question in the 1998 teacher interview that provided
these data asked FACES respondents to identify the name of their principal
curriculum. Because many respondents answered the question in a way that
indicated they used more than one principal curriculum, we recoded the
responses. We interpreted the use of more than one principal curriculum as
the use of combinations of curricula. Some combinations included High
Scope and Creative Curriculum.

The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus
13 percent margin of error. In 1998, the Largest Percentages of Head Start
Children Were in Classes That Used High Scope or Creative

Curriculum

18 36 46

Creative Curriculum High Scope

Other, including combinations

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 23 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

19

In 2000, the Largest Percentages of Head Start Children Also Were in
Classes That Used High Scope or Creative Curriculum

22 36 42

High Scope * principal curriculum Creative Curriculum * principal
curriculum Other * principal curriculum

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The survey
question in the 2000 teacher interview that provided these data asked
FACES respondents to identify the name of their principal curriculum.
Respondents answered the question in a way that indicated the one
principal curriculum they used. The

percentages above are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or
minus 15 percent margin of error. Responses to HHS*s 2002 Program
Information Report (PIR) indicated that 45 percent of Head Start programs
used Creative Curriculum and 18 percent used High Scope. The question in
the PIR concerning the type of curriculum used was open- ended. These
percentages represent responses by programs that reported simply *Creative
Curriculum* or *High Scope*.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 24 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

20

Teachers Reported That Head Start Children Have Been Exposed to a Variety
of Cognitive and Language Development Activities

 The FACES data included no detailed information on the implementation of
individual curriculum packages in 1998 and 2000, but some information on
the activities supporting cognitive development that children experienced
was available. However, because HHS*s FACES project team changed and
expanded the FACES interview questions in 2000, to collect more detailed
information on children*s exposure to activities that foster emergent
literacy, these data also did not allow us to determine change over time.

 In both time periods, most Head Start children had teachers who reported
offering basic cognitive and language development activities daily or
almost daily.

Note: Information on classroom activities was derived from teacher
interviews and thus is subject to the social desirability biases inherent
in selfreported data.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 25 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

21

In 1998, Teachers Reported That over 90 Percent of Head Start Children
Experienced Several Basic Cognitive Development Activities Daily or Almost
Daily

68 Learning letters 95 Reading stories

93 Solving puzzles and playing with geometric forms 96 Building with
blocks or doing other

construction work 92

Percentage of children

Learning numbers or counting

Activity offered by teacher

Sources: 1998 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 7
percent margin of error. Differences in the percentage for learning
letters and all other activities are statistically significant.  Teachers
reported that over 90 percent of Head Start children

experienced block building, story reading, solving puzzles, and learning
numbers daily or almost daily. A smaller proportion learned letters that
often.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 26 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

22

In 2000, Teachers Reported That Head Start Children Were Exposed to a
Variety of Language Development Activities Daily or Almost Daily

76 Discussing new words 29 33

41 43

48 52

60 67

68 75 89

Percentage of children

Listening to stories for which they do not see print Writing letters

Learning about rhyming words and word families Writing their name

Working on phonics Dictating stories Retelling stories Learning letters

Learning about the conventions of print Learning about common prepositions
Listening to stories for which they see print

Children's classroom activity

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. There were no
items in the 2000 FACES teacher interview concerning classroom activities
that fostered general reasoning and numerical skills. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 10
percent margin of error. Differences in the percentages greater than 25
percent are statistically significant. Differences less than 10 percent
are not statistically significant.

 Children were more likely to listen to stories for which they see print,
to learn about new words, prepositions, the conventions of print and
letters, and to retell stories, on a daily or almost daily basis, than to
experience the other activities.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 27 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 2

23

Regional Officials Reported Some Changes in Use of Curricula

 According to officials in 8 of HHS*s 10 regional offices, use of
curriculum by programs in several regions has changed since 1998. They
reported that:

 More programs are using published curricula. Programs have found that
commercially produced curricula make it easier for them to measure child
outcomes. They also use supplementary curricula that they adapt to the
commercial curricula.

 Programs are selecting curricula that include assessment tools that also
can help measure outcomes. 8  Programs are implementing their curricula
with a more structured, sequenced

set of classroom activities. 8 Responses to HHS*s 2002 Program Information
Report (PIR) indicate that, for on- going child assessment, the assessment
instruments developed by publishers of Creative Curriculum and High Scope
were used by the largest percentage of programs. Of programs responding to
the PIR, 11 percent used the Developmental Continuum assessment instrument
produced by the publishers of Creative Curriculum and 9 percent used the
Child Observation Record produced by High Scope*s publishers.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 28 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 3

24

In 2000, Teachers of Most Head Start Children Reported Receiving Mentoring
Support

 Teachers of about two- thirds of Head Start children reported being
observed by a mentor, who provided feedback, guidance, and training.  Of
children whose teachers have a mentor, the teachers of about 60 percent
received mentoring visits once every week or every 2 weeks. Teachers of
the remainder received mentoring visits about once a month or less often.
 About half of Head Start children had teachers who acted as a mentor for
other teachers and trainees. 9

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have a margin of error. The
margin of error for percentages in all three bullets is at most plus or
minus 10 percent. The differences among all percentages in the first and
third bullets are statistically significant. In the second bullet, the
difference

between the percentages for once a week and once every 2 weeks and the
difference between the percentages for once a week and once a month or
less are statistically significant. 9 The FACES data did not provide
information on the qualifications of mentors in 2000.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 29 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 3

25

In 2000, Most Head Start Children Had Teachers Who Monitored Their
Individual Progress

 About 90 percent of Head Start children had teachers who reported
maintaining records of progress on each child.  These individual records
usually included samples of the child*s work, checklists, or rating scales
that indicated the child*s skill level or notes from observations of the
child*s progress.

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have a plus or minus 7 percent
margin of error.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 30 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 3

26

In 2000, Individual Progress of about Two- thirds of Head Start Children
Was Tracked Using a Written System

 About two- thirds of Head Start children whose teachers conduct
individual assessments were assessed using a written system that tracks
each child*s progress on a chart, grid, or series of scales.  Teachers of
an estimated 30 percent of Head Start children who were assessed

used recorded observations of the children during class as the assessment
method.

 Teachers of an estimated 3 percent of Head Start children observed their
behavior but kept no records. Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data,
GAO analysis. Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at
most, a plus or minus 9 percent margin of error. The differences among all
percentages are statistically significant.

3 30

67

Percentage of children whose teachers use the

child assessment

approach

Each child is observed but no notes are kept Each child is observed during
class

and notes are kept Written system records individual

child's progress on chart, grid, or series of scales

Child assessment approach

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 31 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 3

27 46

57 88

89

020 4060 80100 Emergent literacy

Mathematical Language

Cognitive Areas of child development

Percentage of children whose teachers assessed them in the areas

 Most Head Start children received individual assessments in cognitive
and language development. 10  More than half of Head Start

children were assessed in mathematical areas of development and almost
half were assessed in emergent literacy. Sources: 2000 FACES teacher
interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The percentages are based on sample
data and have at most, a plus or minus 12 percent margin of error. The
differences among the percentages for the cognitive, language, emergent
literacy, and mathematical areas of development that are greater than 20
percent are statistically significant. Differences less than 12 percent
are not statistically significant.

10 Head Start children*s individual assessments cover a range of areas,
including physical growth, motor, social and emotional skills and FACES
collects information on assessments in these areas. We have reported
findings only for the cognitive, language, emergent literacy, and
mathematical areas of development because those areas were the focus of
our review. Although High Scope and Creative Curriculum include assessment
instruments, the FACES data did not identify the instruments that were
used to conduct these assessments.

In 2000, Almost 90 Percent of Head Start Children Received Individual
Assessments in Cognitive and Language Development

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 32 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start

Question 3

28

Head Start Children Received Individual Assessments at Least Once a Year
in 2000

 About half of Head Start children received individual assessments three
or more times a year and about half received assessments once or twice a
year.

11 37 52

Annually Twice a year Three or more times a year

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 11
percent margin of error. The differences between the percentage for annual
assessment and the percentages for twice a year and three or more times a
year are statistically significant.

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start

Page 33 GAO- 03- 1049 Head Start (130241)

Question 3

29

In 2000, Individual Assessment Results Were Used for Small Groups and
Overall Curriculum Planning

 Teachers of an estimated 78 percent of Head Start children used the
information from individual assessments to select small groups, by skill
level, for specific learning activities, and in overall

curriculum planning. 10 Used to select the appropriate level for all
instructional activities or in overall curriculum planning

2 Information was recorded but not used for planning 78 Used both in
selecting small groups and in overall curriculum planning

11

Percentage of Head Start children

Used to select small groups of children, by skill level, for specific
learning activities

Use of individual child assessment information

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. Note: The
percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 9
percent margin of error. The differences among all but two sets of
percentages are statistically significant. The difference between
information was not recorded and used to select the appropriate level, and
the difference between used to select small groups and used to select the
appropriate level were not statistically significant.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***