《兰德公司（RAND）：2025美国公立学校学前班教学资源研究报告（英文版）（28页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《兰德公司（RAND）：2025美国公立学校学前班教学资源研究报告（英文版）（28页）.pdf（28页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、ANNA SHAPIRO,ELIZABETH D.STEINER,ASHLEY WOO,JILL S.CANNON,CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH DOSS,LYNN A.KAROLY,EMMA B.KASSANInstructional Resources in Public SchoolBased Pre-KFindings from the Spring 2024 American Pre-K Teacher SurveyMore children are enrolled in pre-kindergarten(pre-K)than ever before,and publicl

2、y funded pro-grams now account for 60 percent of pre-K enrollment(Friedman-Krauss et al.,2024;McElrath and Bauman,2021).1 Although publicly funded pre-K programs are offered in a vari-ety of settings,most students(60 per-cent)are enrolled in public schools.Furthermore,an estimated 60 percent of publ

3、ic elementary schools enroll pre-K students,with about one-quarter enrolled in part-day class-rooms and three-quarters in full-day classrooms(Little,2021;National Survey of Early Care and Education NSECE Project Team,2021).In this report,we present national data on public schoolbased pre-K teachers

4、reports of the curricula and assess-ments they use,their planning time KEY FINDINGS More than 80 percent of public schoolbased pre-kindergarten(pre-K)teachers used multiple commercially available curriculum materials in their classrooms,even when they used a comprehen-sive curriculum.Most pre-K teac

5、hers believed that the instructional materials they used were high quality,particularly for promoting development in language and literacy,early numeracy,and social and emotional domains.Teachers of part-day and full-day classrooms reported using simi-lar curriculum and assessment materials,but part

6、-day teachers had less training on how to use them.Less than one-third of pre-K teachers strongly agreed that they had adequate time during their contracted hours for tasks that support instructional delivery.Teachers of part-day classrooms were less likely to report having adequate time for typical

7、 instructional planning tasks than were teachers of full-day classrooms.Less than half of pre-K teachers reported having dedicated time to coordinate across grades or dedicated time for kindergarten transition.Research Report2and professional learning,and their perceptions of these resources.School-

8、based pre-K programs typically focus on preparing children developmentally for success in kindergarten.Students who attend school-based pre-K enter kindergarten with stronger language and literacy,math,and social and emotional skills(Meloy,Gardner,and Darling-Hammond,2019;Mof-fett et al.,2023;Woodya

9、rd,Sass,and Fazlul,2022).Although many studies have documented fadeout in the initial positive effects of pre-K as children prog-ress through school(e.g.,Weiland,Unterman,and Shapiro,2021),some have found that positive effects of school-based pre-K persist or reemerge through middle and high school

10、and into adulthood(e.g.,Gormley,Phillips,and Anderson,2018;Gray-Lobe,Pathak,and Walters,2023;McCoy et al.,2017).As states continue to invest in expansion of pre-K programs,researchers and policymakers have shifted focus from not only understanding whether pre-K programs have positive impacts on chil

11、dren but also to understanding how those impacts occur(Barnett and Jung,2024;Greenberg et al.,2024).One set of characteristics that might affect how pre-K programs can be effective are structural,such as teacher pay and training,student-teacher ratios,and physical charac-teristics of classroom space

12、(Burchinal et al.,2010).School-based pre-K programs typically offer more of these structural resources than other pre-K programs:They often offer higher compensation for teachers and employ teachers with higher degrees,and these teachers leave teaching at lower rates than teachers in pre-K programs

13、in other settings.All of these fac-tors might relate to program effectiveness(Bellows,AbbreviationsAEPAmerican Educator PanelsATPAmerican Teacher PanelELAEnglish language artsIEPIndividualized Education PlanIFSPIndividualized Family Service PlanNSECENational Survey of Early Care and EducationPKTSPre

14、-K Teacher Surveypre-Kpre-kindergartenSELsocial and emotional learningBassok,and Markowitz,2021;Bureau of Labor Sta-tistics,2024;Grunewald,Palmer,and Nunn,2022).However,less is known about the prevalence of struc-tural characteristics,such as curriculum and assess-ment use,access to planning time an

15、d professional learning,and processes for instructional alignment,in public schoolbased pre-K nationwide.For example,all 50 states and the District of Columbia have agencies that oversee their state-funded school-based pre-K programs.Many of these agencies provide pre-K programs with lists of approv

16、ed curriculum and assessment materials from which programs or teachers can choose(Fischer and Weyer,2024).These approved curriculum and assessment lists might include both comprehensive(or global)materials,which target all developmental domains,and domain-or content-specific materi-als(e.g.,a langua

17、ge and literacy curriculum or a math assessment).Although comprehensive cur-ricula are more commonly used,research suggests that domain-specific curricula might have stronger impacts on students skills in the targeted domain(Clements et al.,2011;Jenkins and Duncan,2017;Jenkins et al.,2019,Bredekamp

18、et al.,2024;Nguyen,Jenkins,and Whitaker,2018;What Works Clearing-house,undated).Pre-K teachers located in school-based settings might also have access to dedicated planning time and professional learning to support curriculum implementation and use of assessment data(Allen and Kelly,2015).Coordinate

19、d use of curriculum,assessments,and planning time can also support hor-izontal instructional alignment across pre-K class-rooms and vertical instructional alignment between pre-K and elementary classrooms.Vertical alignment involves coordinated use of instructional materials(e.g.,standards,curricula

20、,assessments)across grade levels and an understanding of individual students competencies and development as they move through the early grades(Abry et al.,2015;McCormick et al.,2024).School-based pre-K programs can also facilitate smoother transitions to kindergarten by familiarizing students with

21、the school routines they will experience in the early grades(Little et al.,2022;LoCasale-Crouch et al.,2008;Vitello et al.,2020).Descriptions of how these structural character-istics of pre-K programs vary across public school3based pre-K settings can provide valuable insight into the instructional

22、materials and supports to which public schoolbased pre-K teachers have access.To learn about these instructional features of public pre-K classrooms,we fielded a survey to pre-K teach-ers nationally using RANDs American Teacher Panel(ATP).This panel started in 2014 and now has more than 25,000 K12 p

23、ublic school teachers.In 2024,RAND newly recruited about 1,500 public school pre-K teachers to the panel.This report presents findings from the first American Pre-K Teacher Survey(PKTS),a nation-ally representative survey of pre-K teachers in public schools across the United States.We focus on the c

24、urriculum and assessment materials that pre-K teachers used most frequently in their classrooms,their perceptions of the quality of these materials,their access to planning time and dedicated time for coordination across grades,and their professional learning activities.Because one-quarter or more o

25、f school-based pre-K students are enrolled in part-day classrooms,we also describe how teachers reports varied between teachers in full-day and part-day classrooms(NSECE Project Team,2021).Our findings provide unique information to state legislators,early childhood program leaders,and school distric

26、t leaders by describing the features of public schoolbased pre-K programs,the most preva-lent form of public pre-K across the country.Our findings also provide valuable insight to research-ers by describing the prevalence of instructional resources that are associated with positive impacts of public

27、 schoolbased pre-K programs.Research QuestionsWe address the following five research questions in this report:1.What types of curriculum materials do public schoolbased pre-K teachers use in their classrooms?2.What types of assessment materials do public schoolbased pre-K teachers use in their class

28、rooms?3.How much instructional planning time do public schoolbased pre-K teachers receive per week,and how adequate do they perceive this time to be?4.What are teachers perceptions of the extent of horizontal instructional alignment between pre-K classrooms and vertical instructional alignment betwe

29、en pre-K and early elemen-tary classrooms in their schools?5.What types of professional learning do public schoolbased pre-K teachers have access to,and what are their perceptions of the helpfulness of these professional learning opportunities?The Public School Pre-K Teacher SurveysThe PKTS are a re

30、curring set of surveys that RAND will field over several years to public school pre-K teachers.The purpose of the PKTS is to present public school pre-K teachers perspectives about a variety of timely topics,such as curriculum and assessment,alignment with early grades,professional learning,use of t

31、echnology,well-being,working conditions,and retention.Teachers firsthand experi-ences and perspectives provide valuable insight about conditions on the ground and can inform which poli-cies and programs could be most effective in practice.This survey focuses on pre-K teachers in public schools.We de

32、fine a pre-K program as one that chil-dren attend one to two years before they begin kin-dergarten.We refer to the teachers in our survey as pre-K teachers or teachers in this report.We describe our methods for expanding the ATP to include pre-K teachers in Creating a Nationally Representative Surve

33、y Panel of Public School Pre-K Teachers(Grant et al.,2025a).We describe our sampling and weight-ing procedures and present the results of the spring 2024 PKTS in American Public-School Pre-K Teacher Survey:Spring 2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results(Grant et al.,2025b).The PKTS is the onl

34、y nationally representative standing panel of public school pre-K teachers in the United States(Grant et al.,2025a).In addition,the results are freely accessible to the public and timely:We publish our findingsalong with techni-cal information about survey administration and weightingshortly after f

35、ielding a survey.4Spring 2024 Pre-K Teacher SurveyIn this report we use data from the spring 2024 administration of the PKTS,a nationally represen-tative survey of 1,368 public school pre-K teach-ers that was administered in April and May 2024(Grant et al.,2025b).To be included in the survey,teacher

36、s had to teach pre-K in a public school.We screened teachers into the survey using a standard ATP approach,which involved first asking about a comprehensive list of grades and subjects taught.If the teacher reported teaching pre-K and additional grades,they were eligible for the survey if they taugh

37、t only kindergarten or 1st grade in addition to pre-K.Eligible teachers could report teaching any of the following subjects as their main subject:elemen-tary education(including pre-K),special education,English language arts(ELA),English as a second language,mathematics,natural sciences,or social sc

38、iences.The survey sample includes responses from pre-K teachers in all 50 United States and the Dis-trict of Columbia who teach in a variety of public school settings,as described in the box on the next page.For a full description of our recruitment and sampling approach,as well as a complete descri

39、ption of the demographic characteristics of responding teachers,see Grant et al.,2025a.To analyze data from the PKTS,we used similar analytic methods as in our numerous past surveys of educators.Therefore,we recycle text from our prior reports in the sections that describe our data,meth-ods,and limi

40、tations(Grant et al.,2025a;Grant et al.,2025b;Doan,Steiner,and Pandey,2024).When analyzing the survey data for this report,we explored whether teachers survey responses dif-fered according to whether they taught in full-day or part-day classrooms.We also explored variation by teacher characteristics

41、,student characteristics,and other school-level characteristics;however,we do not present these results in this report because we did not detect statistically significant differences in responses along these dimensions.2 In the survey,we defined curriculum materials as materials that outline a prede

42、termined plan for the learning experiences through which children acquire knowledge,skills,abilities,and understand-ing(National Association for the Education of Young Children NAEYC,undated).We categorized the commercial curricula named by respondents as com-prehensive if they were intended to cove

43、r at least three developmental domains(e.g.,language and literacy,numeracy,social and emotional learning SEL,physical development,approaches to learning).We categorized materials as domain-specific if they were designed to cover only one domain.In these cases,we identified the domains as one of the

44、following:lan-guage and literacy,math,or SEL.3 In the survey,we defined assessments as evalua-tion tools used to measure student learning that have predetermined guidelines for administration,scor-ing,and interpretation of results.These assessments could include formative and summative assessments a

45、nd observational or teacher-administered assess-ments.We categorized the commercial assessments named by respondents as comprehensive if they were intended to measure language and literacy as well as numeracy.Many comprehensive assessments also measure other domains,such as social and emotional skil

46、ls and motor development.We categorized assessment materials as domain-specific if they were designed to measure only one domain,and we identified which assessments mea-sured language and literacy,math,or SEL.Although we directed teachers to exclude developmental screenings or screenings for hearing

47、 or vision in their responses,some teachers entered the names of such tools.We categorized responses as developmen-tal screeners if teachers reported using such tools as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire or the Battelle Developmental Inventory.We also generated indica-tors for whether the teacher re

48、ported using a com-mercial assessment that is a component of a com-mercial curriculum they use(e.g.,teacher reported using both The Creative Curriculum and Teaching Strategies GOLD).In addition to reporting results for the full survey sample,we compared the responses between teachers teaching in ful

49、l-day classrooms and teachers teaching in part-day classrooms to explore variation in teachers instructional practices and experiences.4 Although a majority of states offer funding for five or more hours of pre-K per student per day,19 states require as few as 2 or 2.5 hours of state-funded pre-K 5i

50、nstruction each day(Friedman-Krauss et al.,2024;USAFacts,2023).In practice,however,many locali-ties provide supplemental funds to offer longer school days for students.We categorized teachers as teaching in full-day classrooms if they reported that 50 percent or more of their students were enrolled

51、for at least five hours.Using this definition,78 percent of our sample taught in full-day classrooms,nearly all of whom reported that 75 to 100 percent of their students were enrolled for at least five hours.We categorized teachers as teaching in part-day classrooms if they reported that less than 5

52、0 percent of their students were enrolled for at least five hours.Using this definition,22 per-cent of our sample taught in part-day classrooms,nearly all of whom reported that no students were enrolled for at least five hours.This proportion of part-day teachers aligns with other national data:Just

53、 over one-quarter(28 percent)of programs enroll-ing four-year-olds that are located in a public school enrolled only part-day students as of 2019(NSECE Project Team,2021).Teachers who were categorized as teaching in part-day classrooms reported working an average of 38 contracted hours per week,comp

54、ared with 39 hours among teachers in full-day classrooms,which could suggest that part-day teachers teach two ses-sions(or more)per day.More details about our data and analysis can be found in the“How This Analysis Was Conducted”section at the end of this report.Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Cur

55、riculum UseTwo-Thirds of Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Reported Using a Commercially Available Comprehensive Curriculum Nearly all public schoolbased pre-K teachers90 percentreported using at least one commercial curriculum material in their classrooms,and 80 percent reported using at least two

56、commer-cial curriculum materials.To better understand the types of commercially available curriculum materi-Spring 2024 PKTS RespondentsThe following are key characteristics of the spring 2024 PKTS respondents:75 percent of survey respondents taught in an elementary school building(i.e.,pre-K to 5th

57、 grade or pre-K to 8th grade),11 percent of survey respondents taught in a building that included only early grades(pre-K to kindergarten,pre-K to 1st grade,pre-K to 2nd grade,or pre-K to 3rd grade),1 percent of survey respon-dents taught in a comprehensive school building(pre-K to 12th grade),and 9

58、 percent taught in a building that enrolls children only from birth to age five.6 percent of respondents reported teaching in a Head Start classroom.a Roughly one-third of survey respondents taught in urban schools,one-third in suburban schools,and one-third in town/rural schools.68 percent of surve

59、y respondents worked in a school where a majority of their students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.58 percent of survey respondents worked in a school where a majority of students were students of color.Similar to K12 teachers,half of the PKTS respondents held a masters degree or high

60、er.22 percent of respondents had fewer than five years of experience as a pre-K teacher,28 percent had five to nine years of experience,17 percent had between ten and 14 years of experience,and 32 percent had 15 or more years of experience.70 percent of respondents identified as White,10 percent as

61、Black,and 14 percent as Hispanic.91 percent of respondents had a state certification or teaching endorsement for early care and education,early childhood education,and/or child development.a Head Start is a federal early childhood program.Some Head Start programs are located in public schools.6als t

62、hat public schoolbased pre-K teachers used,we asked teachers to provide the names of the two com-mercial materials that they used most frequently in their classrooms in the 20232024 school year.One-third of teachers responded“yes”when asked whether they used more than two commercial materials regula

63、rly.More than two-thirds of teachers also reported using materials that they created them-selves,often in conjunction with the commercial curricula they reported.Therefore,we interpret these responses as providing insight into the commercial materials used most intensively by public schoolbased pre-

64、K teachers,but this is not an exhaustive list of all materials used in pre-K classrooms.Sixty-seven percent of teachers reported using a comprehensive curriculum as one of their two main commercial materials,and 54 percent reported using a domain-specific curriculum material(Figure 1).Just over one-

65、third of teachers reported using only comprehensive curricula when asked to report their two most frequently used commercial mate-rials(Figure 2).Roughly one-third of teachers reported using both a comprehensive curriculum and a domain-specific curriculum.Among teach-ers who used one comprehensive c

66、urriculum and one domain-specific curriculum as their two most frequently used materials,60 percent used an ELA material with their comprehensive material,10 per-cent used a math material with their comprehensive material,and 28 percent used an SEL material with their comprehensive material(2 percen

67、t used materi-als targeting another domain).Just under one-quarter of teachers nationally reported using only domain-specific curricula.Of those teachers,54 percent used only ELA materials,3 percent used only math materials,20 percent used FIGURE 1Comprehensive and Domain-Specific Commercial Curricu

68、la in Rank Order of Use by Percentage of Pre-K TeachersNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Please provide the names of the two commercially available curriculum materials you use most frequently in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024).”Percentages rep

69、orted for each category indicate the proportion of teachers who reported using a curriculum material in each category.Percentages do not add up to 100 because teachers could list one or two materials.Curricula are listed in order of prevalence within each category and shaded by most prevalent(darkes

70、t color)to least prevalent(lightest color).All listed curricula were reported as used by at least ten respondents.Free responses were coded to resolve spelling and case inconsistencies.N=1,339.The Creative CurriculumFrog Street3 Cheers for Pre-KConnect4LearningPreK On My WayHighScopeBig Day for PreK

71、Tools of the MindOpening the World of Learning(OWL)HeggertyLanguage/literacy(40%)Learning Without TearsFundationsCore Knowledge Language Arts(CKLA)WondersComprehensive curricula(67%)Eureka MathBridges in MathematicsEveryday MathematicsBuilding BlocksMath(9%)Second StepConscious DisciplineSEL(14%)Dom

72、ain-specifc curricula(54%)Most commonVery commonSomewhat commonNot very commonNot common7one ELA material and one math material,and 10 per-cent used one ELA material and one SEL material.As shown in Figure 2,part-day classroom teach-ers were significantly less likely to use only compre-hensive mater

73、ials and significantly more likely to use only domain-specific materials than were full-day teachers.Teachers of full-and part-day classrooms were similarly likely to use a combination of compre-hensive and domain-specific materials.Pre-K Teachers Believed That Their Commercial Curriculum Materials

74、Were High-Quality A large majority of pre-K teachers reported positive perceptions of all the commercial materials that they used on several dimensions.Ninety-four percent somewhat or strongly agreed that their materi-als promoted language and literacy development,with 68 percent reporting that they

75、 strongly agreed(Figure 3).More than half of teachers strongly agreed that their materials promoted early numeracy and social and emotional development and were develop-mentally appropriate for their students.Although agreement overall was high,fewer teachers agreed that their commercial materials m

76、et the needs of specific populations of students.Only 39 percent of teachers strongly agreed that their materials meet the needs of English learners,37 percent strongly agreed that their materials pro-vided culturally relevant instruction,and 29 per-cent strongly agreed that their materials meet the

77、 needs of students in special education.We found no differences in perception of curriculum qual-ity by whether teachers taught in part-or full-day classrooms.Teachers overall perceptions of the quality of their commercial materialswhich we asked about after teachers had responded to the seven indiv

78、idual items related to curriculum qualitywere consis-tent with their perceptions of specific dimensions of quality.Eighty-six percent of teachers somewhat or strongly agreed that the commercially available cur-ricula that they used were high quality.There were no differences in levels of agreement w

79、ith this statement by teachers in full-day or part-day classrooms.FIGURE 2Teachers Use of Commercial Curriculum Materials,by Type of Materials and Full-Day or Part-Day ClassroomsPercentage of teachersComprehensive onlyComprehensive and domain-specifcDomain-specifc onlyNOTE:This fgure depicts respons

80、e data from the following survey question:“Please provide the names of the two commercially available curriculum materials you use most frequently in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024).”N=1,339.Free responses were coded to resolve spelling and case inconsistencies,and curricula were cla

81、ssifed as comprehensive or domain-specifc using publicly available information found on developers websites.Percentages do not add to 100 because teachers who responded that they do not use commercially available curriculum materials are not shown.Numbers might not perfectly add to totals because of

82、 rounding.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers in part-day classrooms and teachers in full-day classrooms.0102030405060708090100Part-dayFull-dayAll teachers9123*3434*90363123903930218Teachers Who Used Domain-Specific Numeracy and Social and Emotional Lear

83、ning Curricula Were More Likely to Report That Their Materials Supported Childrens Development in Those AreasTeachers who used domain-specific commercial mate-rials that promote early numeracy or SEL were more likely to strongly agree that their materials supported childrens development in that doma

84、in,compared with teachers not using materials specific to that domain(Figure 4).In contrast,teachers who used domain-specific materials that promote early literacy were no more likely than teachers who did not use such mate-rials to strongly agree that their materials promoted literacy development.G

85、iven the widespread use of comprehensive curricula(67 percent of teachers in our sample),these findings might suggest that teachers perceive that domain-specific literacy materials add less additional value when used with a comprehensive material than do materials that specifically target numeracy o

86、r social and emotional domains.FIGURE 3Teachers Perceptions of the Quality of Their Commercial Curriculum Materials02020406080100Percentage of teachersThe curriculum materials I use this school year.Total percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly agreeSomewhat or strongly disagreeSomewhat agre

87、eStrongly agreepromote language and literacy developmentpromote social emotional developmentare developmentally appropriate for my studentspromote early numeracyprovide culturally relevant instructionmeet the needs of English Learnersmeet the needs of students with IEPs/IFSPsThe commercially availab

88、le curriculum materials I use are high qualityNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Thinking about all the commercially available curriculum materials you use in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024),indicate your disagreement or agreement with the follo

89、wing statements.The curriculum materials I use this school year.”Response options were“strongly agree,”“somewhat agree,”“somewhat disagree,”“strongly disagree,”and“does not apply.”N=1,292.Because very few respondents selected“strongly disagree,”respondents who selected“somewhat disagree”or“strongly

90、disagree”are represented together in the fgure.Respondents who selected“does not apply”are not shown.The item“The commercially available curriculum materials I used are high quality”was asked in a separate question after the seven specifc quality dimensions.Numbers might not perfectly add to totals

91、because of rounding.IEP=Individualized Education Plan;IFSP=Individualized Family Service Plan.1423181812116464538433432292540293937525457681486868680777486949Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Assessment UseThree-Quarters of Pre-K Teachers Used a Comprehensive AssessmentJust under 80 percent of publi

92、c schoolbased pre-K teachers reported using commercially avail-able assessment materials in their classrooms.The remaining 20 percent of teachers reported using only assessments that they created themselves.We asked teachers to provide the names of the two assessment materials that they used most fr

93、equently in their classrooms.Nearly three-quarters of teachers reported using a comprehensive assessment as one of their two most frequently used assessment materi-als,and 25 percent reported using a domain-specific assessment(Figure 5).Although we asked teachers not to include developmental screene

94、rs,11 percent reported a developmental screener as one of their two most frequently used assessment materials.Two per-cent of teachers reported using only a developmental screener as their most frequently used assessment material.We did not ask teachers to describe how these developmental screeners

95、were used,so we do not know,for example,whether the developmental screeners replaced or supplemented tools that measure learning throughout the year or were administered as part of universal screening practices for students with disabilities.Teachers in part-day and full-day classrooms used a simila

96、r mix of comprehensive and domain-specific assessments and conducted assessments at similar frequencies.Roughly one-quarter of teachers in full-day and part-day classrooms reported assess-FIGURE 4Teachers Perceptions of the Quality of Their Commercial Curriculum Materials for Promoting Targeted Doma

97、insPercentage of teachers who strongly agree0102030405060708090promote language andliteracy developmentpromote early numeracypromote social emotionaldevelopment56516879*72*70The curriculum materials I use this school year.NOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Thin

98、king about all the commercially available curriculum materials you use in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024),indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.The curriculum materials I use this school year.”N=1,292.Bars represent the proportion of teachers who stron

99、gly agreed that their materials promote development in each domain.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers using materials that target each domain and those not using materials that target that domain.Black bars represent 95-percent confdence intervals.Teach

100、ers not using materials targeting domainTeachers using materials targeting domain10ing their students at least weekly;13 percent of teach-ers in part-day classrooms and 18 percent of teachers in full-day classrooms reported assessing monthly or bimonthly.Fifty percent of part-day classroom teach-ers

101、 and 55 percent of full-day classroom teachers reported assessing two to four times per year.Although we did not ask teachers how much time they spent assessing students learning,only about two-thirds of teachers in part-day classrooms and full-day classrooms somewhat or strongly agreed that they ha

102、d adequate time to conduct assessments(see Figure 9).If teachers in both full-and part-day classrooms are using the same assess-FIGURE 5Comprehensive and Domain-Specific Assessments and Developmental Screeners in Rank Order of Use by Percentage of Pre-K TeachersNOTE:This fgure depicts response data

103、from the following survey question:“Please provide the names of the two commercially available assessments you use most frequently in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024).”N=1,119.Free responses were coded to resolve spelling and case inconsistencies.Percentages reported for each category

104、 indicate the proportion of teachers who reported using an assessment material in each category.Percentages do not add up to 100 because teachers could list one or two materials.Assess-ments are listed in order of prevalence within each category and shaded by most prevalent(darkest color)to least pr

105、evalent(lightest color).This fgure displays assessments reported by at least ten respondents.Teaching Strategies GOLDCircle Progress Monitoring SystemBRIGANCE Inventory of Early DevelopmentDesired Results Developmental Profle(DRDP)Individual Growth and Development Indicators(IGDI)early learning asse

106、ssments(ELAs)/kindergarten readiness assessments(KRAs)Comprehensive assessments(73%)Virginia Language&Literacy Screener(VALLS)Star Early LiteracyHeggerty assessments(phonemic and phonological awareness)Preschool Early Literacy Indicators(PELI)Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills(DIBELS)

107、Formative Assessment System for Teachers(FAST)ELA(21%)Eureka MathBridges in MathematicsMath(3%)Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment(DECA)Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program(VB-MAPP)SEL(2%)Domain-specifc assessments(25%)Developmental screeners(11%)Developmental Indicators for

108、the Assessment of Learning(DIAL)Ages and Stages Questionnaire(ASQ)Battelle Developmental Inventory(BDI)Early Screening Inventory(ESI)Most commonVery commonSomewhat commonNot very commonNot common11ments,this might suggest that part-day classroom teachers administer less of the assessment,adminis-ter

109、 the whole assessment less thoroughly,administer the assessment in a way that is not consistent with the design to adapt to their shorter instructional hours,or spend a greater share of their instructional time administering assessments than do full-day teachers.Pre-K Teachers Believed That Their Co

110、mmercial Assessments Were High QualityPre-K teachers expressed generally positive percep-tions of the commercial assessments that they used,in patterns that were similar to their perceptions of commercial curricula.More than 80 percent of teachers somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that their assess

111、ments were aligned with the curricula they used,were helpful for informing families about their students,gave them enough information to tailor their instruction,and were developmentally appropriate(Figure 6).Smaller proportions of teachers somewhat or strongly agreed that their assessment materials

112、 were culturally relevant,appropriate for English learners,or appropriate for students with disabilities.Half of teachers reported using a commercial assessment that was paired with a commercial cur-riculum that they used.An example of a paired curriculum and assessment is Teaching Strategies GOLD,w

113、hich is a formative assessment adminis-tered as part of the implementation of The Creative Curriculum.Similar shares of full-and part-day FIGURE 6Teachers Perceptions of the Quality of Their Commercial Assessments02020406080Percentage of teachersare aligned with the curricula I usehelp me inform fam

114、ilies about their childrengive me enough information to tailor my instructionare developmentally appropriateare culturally relevant to my studentsare appropriate for English Learnersare appropriate for students with IEPs/IFSPsNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“

115、Thinking about all the commercially available assessments you use in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024),indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.The commercially available assessments I use.”Response options were“strongly agree,”“somewhat agree,”“somewhat di

116、sagree,”“strongly disagree,”and“does not apply.”N=1,049.Because very few respondents selected“strongly disagree,”respondents who selected“somewhat disagree”or“strongly disagree”are represented together in the fgure.Numbers might not perfectly add to totals because of rounding.30272318171514384043373

117、7343527293245465154Total percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly agreeSomewhat or strongly disagreeSomewhat agreeStrongly agree89858382746965The commercially available assessments I use.12classroom teachers used assessments that were con-nected to their curricula:55 percent of part-day class

118、room teachers and 48 percent of full-day class-room teachers reported using such assessments.Teachers who used assessments connected to their curricula were more likely to agree or strongly agree that their assessment materials were develop-mentally appropriate,helped them inform families about stud

119、ents development,gave them enough information to tailor instruction,and were aligned with their curricula(Figure 7).Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Use of Planning TimeOne-Quarter or More of TeachersEspecially Part-Day Classroom TeachersSaid That They Had Inadequate Instructional Planning TimeTeac

120、hers at all grade levels say that they do not have enough time to perform essential job-related tasks(Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond,2017;Doan,Steiner,and Pandey,2024).Pre-K teachers are no dif-ferent.One-quarter to one-third of pre-K teachersespecially part-day classroom teachers and teachers wh

121、o reported less weekly planning timesomewhat FIGURE 7Teachers Perceptions of the Quality of Their Commercial Assessments,by Use of Paired Curricula and AssessmentsNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Thinking about all the commercially available assessments you u

122、se in your pre-K classroom this school year(20232024),indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.The commercially available assessments I use.”N=1,092.Bars represent the proportion of teachers who somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that their assessment materials are devel

123、opmentally appropriate,help them inform families about their children,give enough information to tailor instruction,and are aligned with the curricula they use.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers using paired curricula and assessments and those not using

124、 paired curricula and assessments.Black bars represent 95-percent confdence intervals.Percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly agree0102030405060708090are aligned withthe curricula I usegive me enoughinformation to tailormy instructionhelp me informfamilies abouttheir childrenare developmenta

125、llyappropriateTeachers not using paired curricula and assessmentsTeachers using paired curricula and assessmentsThe commercially available assessments I use.3946424152*56*51*61*13or strongly disagreed that they had enough time to complete tasks that support instructional delivery.Only one-third or f

126、ewer teachers strongly agreed that they had adequate time to complete these tasks.One-quarter or more of pre-K teachers said that they did not have enough time during their contracted hours to carry out such tasks as documenting or assessing students learning,engaging with families,planning classroo

127、m activities,completing administrative tasks,and working with colleagues(Figure 8).Teachers were most likely to say that they did not have enough time to collaborate with other teachers,complete adminis-trative tasks,and work with a coach or mentor.Nearly all pre-K teachers(96 percent)said that they

128、 had some amount of instructional planning time scheduled during their weekly contracted hours.Pre-K teachers most commonly reported having two or three scheduled hours of instructional planning time per week(42 percent).Thirty-seven percent of pre-K teachers reported having four or more hours of pl

129、anning time each week,and 20 percent had one hour or less per week of planning time or no plan-ning time at all.Although the modal amount of plan-ning time for pre-K teachers was similar to that for elementary grade teachers42 percent of elementary grade teachers reported having two or three hours F

130、IGURE 8Teachers Perceptions of Whether They Had Enough Time During Contracted Hours Each Week to Carry out Planning and Administrative Tasks0202040406080Percentage of teachersobserve and document childrens learningengage with familiesconduct assessments of childrens learningreview and use assessment

131、 data to inform instructionplan classroom activitiescollaborate with other teacherscomplete administrative taskswork with a coach or mentorNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.Think about a typ

132、ical week this school year(20232024).I have enough time during my regular contracted hours to.”N=1,4041,405.Bars represent the proportion of teachers who strongly disagreed or disagreed,agreed,or strongly agreed that they have enough time to carry out each task.Because very few respondents selected“

133、strongly disagree,”respondents who selected“somewhat disagree”or“strongly disagree”are represented together in the fgure.Respondents who selected“does not apply”are not shown.Numbers might not perfectly add to totals because of rounding.424438343329262430353539434543431416252724253132757370676660514

134、4Total percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly agreeSomewhat or strongly disagreeSomewhat agreeStrongly agreeI have enough time during my regular contracted hours to.14of dedicated planning time in the 20232024 school year in the national School Pulse Panel(National Center for Education Stat

135、istics,undated)more pre-K teachers reported having four hours or more of planning time than did elementary grade teachers.Pre-K teachers with less weekly planning time were more likely to say that they lacked adequate time to complete the tasks we asked about.Teach-ers with four or more hours of wee

136、kly planning time were more likely to say that they had enough time to complete each task during their contracted hours than their counterparts(Figure 9).Even so,about one-quarter or more of pre-K teachers with four or more hours of weekly planning time said that they lacked time to complete some of

137、 the tasks we asked about.These findings suggest that although more plan-ning time can help teachers complete some neces-sary tasks(e.g.,planning classroom activities or using assessment data to inform their instruction),it might not be sufficient to enable all important activi-ties,such as working

138、with a coach or mentor.About 60 percent of teachers who had four or more hours of FIGURE 9Teachers Perceptions of Whether They Had Enough Time During Contracted Hours Each Week to Carry Out Planning and Administrative Tasks,by Weekly Hours of Planning TimePercentage of teachers who somewhat or stron

139、gly agreeI have enough time during my regular contracted hours to.4 or more hours23 hoursLess than 2 hoursobserve and document childrens learningengage with familiesconduct assessments of childrens learningplan classroom activitiesreview and use assessment data to inform instructioncollaborate with

140、other teacherscomplete administrative taskswork with a coach or mentorNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.Think about a typical week this school year(20232024).I have enough time during my reg

141、ular contracted hours to.”N=1,4041,405.Bars represent the proportion of teachers with less than two hours of instructional planning time(n=288),the propor-tion of teachers with two to three hours of instructional planning time(n=592),and the proportion of teachers with four or more hours of instruct

142、ional planning time(n=523)who responded that they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they have adequate time to perform each task.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers with less than two hours of planning time and teachers with four or more hours of p

143、lanning time and between teachers with teachers with two to three hours of planning time and teachers with four or more hours of planning time.Black bars represent 95-percent confdence intervals.41*43*50*57*50*66696948*45*55*64*64*6670745962697273737679010203040506070809015weekly instructional plann

144、ing time still said that they lacked adequate time for coaching.Although full-and part-day teachers reported similar amounts of weekly planning time,on aver-age,part-day classroom teachers were less likely to report that they had adequate time to complete administrative tasks and work with a coach o

145、r mentor(Figure 10).This might be because teach-ers in part-day classrooms are likely to teach two different classes each day and might have a greater volume of some tasks to complete(e.g.,more administrative tasks or more assessment data to examine).Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Perception of I

146、nstructional Alignment in Their Schools Teachers of Part-Day Classrooms Were Less Likely to Report Either Vertical or Horizontal Instructional Alignment Practices in Their SchoolsMost teachers in full-and part-day classrooms agreed or strongly agreed with many statements about the extent of both ver

147、tical and horizontal instruc-tional alignment in their school(Figure 11).More than 80 percent agreed that their programs used a FIGURE 10Teachers Perceptions of Whether They Had Enough Time During Contracted Hours Each Week to Carry out Planning and Administrative Tasks,by Teachers in Part-Day and F

148、ull-Day Classrooms42*43*5260646568705353616764697672Percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly agreeI have enough time during my regular contracted hours to.Full-dayPart-dayengage with familiesobserve and document childrens learningconduct assessments of childrens learningplan classroom activit

149、iesreview and use assessment data to inform instructioncollaborate with other teacherscomplete administrative taskswork with a coach or mentorNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements.Think about a

150、typical week this school year(20232024).I have enough time during my regular contracted hours to.”N=1,4041,405.Bars represent the proportion of teachers in full-day classrooms(n=1,062)and the proportion of teachers in part-day classrooms(n=306)who responded that they somewhat agreed or strongly agre

151、ed that they have adequate time to perform each task.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers in full-day and part-day classrooms.Black bars represent 95-percent confdence intervals.010203040506070809016common set of curriculum and assessment materi-als withi

152、n pre-K classrooms,and around 70 percent agreed that they use a common curriculum or a multigrade curriculum in the early grades.Fewer teachers agreed that their programs provided dedi-cated time for coordination across pre-K classrooms(60 percent)or across grades(48 percent).Only 30 percent of teac

153、hers reported having dedicated time to coordinate with kindergarten teachers on planning for pre-K students transition into kindergarten.More full-day classroom teachers than part-day classroom teachers agreed with all of these state-ments,although not all of the differences were statis-tically sign

154、ificant.For example,teachers of full-day classrooms were more likely to agree with statements about horizontal alignment across pre-K classrooms(using common curriculum materials and assess-ments in the pre-K classrooms in their school)than were teachers of part-day classrooms.Full-day class-room te

155、achers were also more likely to agree that they had dedicated time to coordinate instruction classrooms in pre-K and across grades(vertical align-ment)than were part-day classroom teachers.Teachers with More Dedicated Planning Time Were More Likely to Report That They Had Adequate Time Dedicated to

156、Vertical and Horizontal Instructional AlignmentTeachers perceptions of alignment across classrooms and grade levels were also related to the amount of FIGURE 11Teachers Agreement That There Was Vertical or Horizontal Alignment in Their School or DistrictPercentage of teachers who somewhat or strongl

157、y agreeFull-dayPart-dayHorizontal alignmentAll pre-K classrooms in my school use a common set of child assessmentsAll pre-K classrooms in my school use a common set of curriculum materialsMy school provides dedicated time during working hours to coordinate across pre-K classrooms Vertical alignmentM

158、y school uses a common curriculum or a multi-grade curriculum in the early gradesMy school provides dedicated time during regular contracted hours to coordinate the content of instruction across early gradesMy school provides dedicated time during regular contracted hours to coordinate with kinderga

159、rten teachers on planning for pre-K students transition into kindergartenNOTE:This fgure depicts response data from the following survey question:“Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements about coordination with other pre-K and/or early grade classrooms in your school an

160、d district this school year(20232024).”Bars represent the proportion of teachers in full-day classrooms(n=1,061)and the proportion of teachers in part-day classrooms(n=306)who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements above.*Asterisks indicate a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between

161、 teachers in full-day and part-day classrooms.Black bars represent 95-percent confdence intervals.2743*7080*843351739093010203040506070809010056*6617planning time that they reported having.In general,teachers who reported four or more hours of instruc-tional planning time per week were 20 percentage

162、 points more likely to somewhat agree or strongly agree that there was dedicated time for coordination across pre-K classrooms and 10 percentage points more likely to agree that there was dedicated time for coordination across grade levels than were teachers with two hours or less of instructional p

163、lanning time.Full-day teach-ers with more weekly planning time were more likely to agree that they had dedicated time to coordinate across pre-K classrooms and across grades and that there was dedicated time for kindergarten transition than were teachers with less than two hours of weekly planning t

164、ime(Figure 12).These patterns were similar for part-day classroom teachers,with the exception of having dedicated time for coordinating across grades.Public SchoolBased Pre-K Teachers Participation in and Perception of Professional Learning in Their Schools More Than Two-Thirds of Pre-K Teachers Rep

165、orted Participating in Professional Learning Communities and Receiving Training on Curriculum and Assessment ImplementationParticipation in professional learning communi-ties,training on how to use curriculum materials,and training on how to use data to inform instruc-tion were the most commonly rep

166、orted profes-sional learning activities.Pre-K teachers reports of participation in these activities are consistent with FIGURE 12Teachers Agreement That Their Schools Had Dedicated Time to Coordinate Across Grades,by Full-or Part-Day Classrooms and Amount of Weekly Planning TimeNOTE:This fgure depic

167、ts response data to the following survey question:“Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements about coordination with other pre-K and/or early grade classrooms in your school and district this school year(20232024).”Circles represent the proportion of all teachers(N=1,369)

168、,the proportion of teachers in part-day classrooms(n=306),and the propor-tion of teachers in full-day classrooms(n=1,061)who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements above,split by whether they had less than two hours of planning time or had four or more hours of planning time.*Asterisks indica

169、te a statistically signifcant difference(p 0.05)between teachers with less than two hours of planning time and teachers with four or more hours of planning time among all teachers,full-day teachers,and part-day teachers.Horizontal alignmentVertical alignmentPercentage of teachers who somewhat or str

170、ongly agree4774*4774*4968*4454*4556*4345020406080100My school provides dedicated time during working hours to coordinate across pre-K classroomsMy school provides dedicated time during regular contracted hours to coordinate the content of instruction across early grades2937*3038*2432My school provid

171、es dedicated time during regular contracted hours to coordinate with kindergarten teachers on planning for pre-K students transition into kindergartenFull-day teachers4 or more hoursLess than 2 hoursAll teachers4 or more hoursLess than 2 hours4 or more hoursLess than 2 hoursPart-day teachers18teache

172、rs of elementary grades nationally(Doan et al.,2024).Most teachers who participated in each professional learning activity found it somewhat or very helpful,although,for most of the activities we asked about,more teachers found the activity some-what helpful than found it very helpful(Figure 13).Sim

173、ilar shares of part-day and full-day classroom teachers reported participating in most of these activities,with two exceptions:Teachers in part-day classrooms were less likely than teachers in full-day classrooms to report training on using curriculum materials(60 percent versus 71 percent)and asses

174、s-ment data(55 versus 69 percent).Less Than Half of Teachers Reported Receiving Formal Coaching Forty-seven percent of teachers said that they partici-pated in a formal coaching arrangement for profes-sional learning during the 20232024 school year,and most of these teachers found it somewhat or ver

175、y helpful(Figure 13).This finding is consistent with the share of elementary grade teachers who reported participating in any coaching during the 20232024 school year(Doan et al.,2024).Teachers who received coaching,on average,reported seven visits with their coach by the time of survey administrati

176、on in March 2024(roughly once per month,on average).More than 70 percent of teachers who participated in coaching worked collab-oratively with their coach to determine the focus of FIGURE 13Pre-K Teachers Participation in Professional Learning Activities by Perception of HelpfulnessPercentage of tea

177、chersI did this and it was not helpfulI did this and it was somewhat helpfulI did this and it was very helpfulParticipation in a professional learning communityTraining on how to use curriculum materialsTraining on how to use assessment data to inform your instructionCoaching as part of a formal arr

178、angement that is recognized or supported by the school or districtMentoring and/or peer observation as part of a formal arrangement that is recognized or supported by the school or districtObserving teachers in other pre-K classrooms at your school or another schoolNOTE:This fgure depicts response d

179、ata to the following survey question:“Have you participated in any of the following activities related to teaching pre-K this school year(20232024)and if so,how helpful were they for improving your instruction?”N=1,3911,393.Bars represent the proportion of teachers who responded that they did each t

180、ype of professional development and who found it very helpful,somewhat helpful,or not helpful.Teachers who responded“I did not do this”are not included in this fgure.The proportion of teachers who participated in each professional learning opportunity is displayed in the number to the right of the b

181、ar.Numbers might not perfectly add to totals because of rounding.010203040506070809019202024243517212236374113668784696647443619the observation,received feedback from their coach after being observed,and worked with their coach to interpret data about student learning.Relatively fewer teachers46 per

182、centever observed the coach modeling or demonstrating an instructional strategy.Part-day teachers were less likely to participate in coaching than were full-day teachers(39 and 49 per-cent,respectively).Summary and Implications This report presents findings from the first nationally representative s

183、urvey of public schoolbased pre-K teachers in the United States.Public schoolbased pre-K teachers reported using a mix of commercially available curriculum and assessment materials and reported that they believed these materials were high quality.The pre-K teachers particularly endorsed their instru

184、ctional materials for promoting childrens development in language and literacy,early numeracy,and social and emotional domains.Those teachers who used curriculum materials that target a specific domain and those who used paired curricula and assessments were more likely to report that their most fre

185、quently used materials promoted development in the targeted domains and supported their instruction.Public schoolbased pre-K teachers reported not having adequate planning time to engage in activities that support instruction,such as planning classroom activities,using assessment data to support stu

186、dent learning,and completing administrative tasks.Teachers who had less than four hours of planning each week were more likely to report having insuf-ficient time for a variety of tasks than teachers who had more than four hours of weekly planning time.Although most public schoolbased pre-K teach-er

187、s reported using common curricula and assess-ments across pre-K classrooms in their schools(i.e.,horizontal alignment)and across early grades(i.e.,vertical alignment),relatively fewer teachers had ded-icated time to coordinate across grade levels and plan for kindergarten transition.Finally,less tha

188、n half of public schoolbased pre-K teachers reported partici-pating in coaching,mentoring,or peer observation.Teachers in part-day classrooms shared both similarities and differences with those in full-day classrooms.We found no sizeable differences between teachers in part-day and full-day classroo

189、ms in the types of curriculum and assessment materials or perceptions of quality of the materials that teach-ers used.Part-day classroom teachers were more likely to report that their planning time was inad-equate for many of the activities we asked about than full-day teachers.Teachers in part-day

190、classrooms were also less likely to report horizontal and vertical alignment along these dimensions than were teachers in full-day classrooms.Our findings highlight variation in some struc-tural aspects of public schoolbased pre-K programs and the ways in which the experiences of teachers who teach

191、in part-day classrooms differ from those who teach full-day classrooms.Using these findings,we offer the following implications.Teachers Might Need Additional Resources to Support the Use of Curriculum and Assessment Materials,Particularly When Using Multiple Materials Eighty-two percent of public s

192、choolbased pre-K teachers used at least two commercially available cur-riculum materials frequently(at least once per week),and nearly all90 percentused at least one com-mercially available assessment material.Although we suspect this is typicalmost elementary grade teach-ers do not use a single cur

193、riculum as it is written(Kaufman et al.,2020)it is nevertheless surprising because one benefit of a comprehensive curriculum is that teachers can rely on a single set of materials without having to integrate and pace multiple materi-als(Bredekamp et al.,2024).Teachers in part-day pre-K classrooms re

194、ported using the same curriculum materials as did full-day classroom teachers.This is unsurprising because many materials are designed to be adaptable to both full-and part-day classrooms(Wasik and Snell,2019).However,it is likely that full-day and part-day classroom teachers,simply because of the d

195、iffer-ent amounts of time they had with their students,were implementing their materials in different ways(Denker and Atteberry,2024).20Successful adaptation of materials and the coher-ent integration of multiple materials requires con-siderable training and experience(Bredekamp et al.,2024).Yet tea

196、chers in part-day classrooms were less likely to report receiving training on using curricu-lum materials than teachers in full-day programs.This suggests that guidance on how to best use mate-rials to take advantage of the few instructional hours available to teachers of part-day students might be

197、necessary.For example,the New Jersey Department of Early Childhood provides both full-and part-day suggested schedules for implementation of approved curricula(New Jersey Department of Education,undated).In addition,part-day classroom teachers used similar assessment materials and assessed their stu

198、dents at a similar frequency as full-day teachers.This could imply that part-day classroom teachers spent a larger share of their time assessing students.Alternatively,it could suggest that teachers were shortening or otherwise adapting the assessments they use.Part-day classroom teachers were sub-s

199、tantially less likely to report having participated in professional learning activities to support their use of assessment data than full-day classroom teach-ers.Together these findings suggest the need for schools,districts,or states to provide training or other supports to help part-day teachers u

200、se their assessments efficiently and effectively.Part-Day Classroom Teachers Might Need More Dedicated Instructional Planning Time Part-day classroom teachers consistently reported that they did not have adequate instructional plan-ning time for many instructional and administrative tasks.Part-day c

201、lassroom teachers,many of whom teach two classes per day,reported similar hours of weekly instructional planning time as full-day classroom teachers but lower satisfaction with the amount of planning time they received.One reason for the lower satisfaction reported by part-day class-room teachers co

202、uld be that they have more tasks to complete,commensurate with the number of classes they teach,or it could reflect that they complete tasks less thoroughly or completely than they would like.Providing more instructional planning time to these teachers might be necessary to account for the addi-tion

203、al load of teaching two classrooms per day.Providing adequate planning time,training,and other supports for teachers to use their curri-cula and assessments to support student learning is critical in states and localities engaged in expanding pre-K.Such expansion will require districts to hire,train

204、,and onboard new teachers and make sure that those programs are aligned with early elemen-tary grades.Consideration of how instructional resources might need to be adapted to support the different working conditions in full-and part-day classrooms,and what supports are necessary for teachers to do t

205、his well,is critical.More Focus on Dedicated Time to Promote Instructional Alignment Within Pre-K Classrooms and Across Early Grades Might Be Needed Alignment of curriculum and assessment materials within pre-K and across early grades is common,but less than half of teachers reported having dedi-cat

206、ed time to coordinate within and across grades.Instructional alignment between pre-K and kin-dergarten classrooms has been shown to improve the long-term academic outcomes of children(Abry et al.,2015;McCormick et al.,2024).School-based pre-K programs can also facilitate smoother transi-tion to kind

207、ergarten by familiarizing students with the school routines they will experience in the early grades(Little et al.,2022;LoCasale-Crouch et al.,2008;Vitello et al.,2020).The potential benefits of school-based pre-K might be difficult to realize with-out dedicated time to coordinate across grades.Half

208、 of teachers reported using aligned cur-riculum and assessment materials across pre-K classrooms in their schools,and nearly two-thirds reported using a multigrade curriculum.However,we also found that most teachers did not have dedi-cated time to coordinate with other pre-K classrooms and with olde

209、r grades or to coordinate kindergarten transition.Half of teachers did not have dedicated time to coordinate across grades,and two-thirds did 21not have dedicated time for kindergarten transition.These findings underscore the need for intentional alignment practices across early grades to realize th

210、e benefits of school-based pre-K programs.In the interest of supporting smooth kindergarten tran-sitions,school leaders should consider providing dedicated time for coordination across early grades,adoption of multigrade curricula,and/or dedicated kindergarten transition activities to leverage the b

211、enefits of school settings in facilitating instructional alignment across early grades.Instructional alignment includes many com-ponents,such as aligning standards across grades,adopting multigrade curricula,using consistent pedagogical practices,and providing integrated pro-fessional learning acros

212、s early grades(Stipek et al.,2017).Although our findings speak to only a few of the components of instructional alignment,they indicate that many pre-K teachers in public schoolbased settings perceive the amount of time they have dedicated to achieving instructional alignment to be inadequate.Future

213、 DirectionsThis report presents information about instruction-ally related structural aspects of public schoolbased pre-K programs.The findings raise many questions that would benefit from future research,some of which we will address in future PKTS.Here we offer suggestions for future directions of

214、 this research.How Do Public School-Based Pre-K Teachers Implement Curricula and Assessments,and How Does Implementation Vary Across the Country?In this report,we described the two most frequently used commercially available curriculum and assess-ment materials and teachers perceptions of the qual-i

215、ty of these materials.However,this does not capture the full array of materials teachers use or address how teachers implement those materials in their classrooms.Future administrations of the PKTS can explore the full array of commercial,self-created,or self-purchased materials teachers use and how

216、 they combine,modify,or adapt these materials for the students in their classrooms.A recent study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences,Engineering,and Medicine recommended that pre-K program leaders adopt and encourage teachers to implement curricula that are coherently integrated,include

217、 developmen-tally appropriate learning goals,have a scope and sequence,provide rich instructional content,and ensure coherent alignment across learning domains(Bredekamp et al.,2024).Just as leaders in many states have focused on implementing standards-aligned instructional materials in K-12 classro

218、oms,we anticipate that the PKTS can be used to assess the extent to which public schoolbased pre-K teachers are using curriculum and assessment materials that meet the new vision of high-quality materials offered by the National Academies(Doan et al.,2022).Classroom activities can also vary widely e

219、ven when teachers use the same curriculum(Jenkins et al.,2019).Gathering evidence on the materials that public schoolbased pre-K teachers use and on the activities that they use to engage their students and to promote development in all domains of early learn-ing can help researchers understand the

220、mechanisms underlying any program effects or identify gaps in program implementation.How Do the Structural Characteristics of Part-Day and Full-Day Classrooms Affect the Quality of Public SchoolBased Pre-K Programs?Recent evidence suggests that part-day pre-K pro-grams have smaller impacts on studen

221、t achievement than do full-day pre-K programs(Atteberry,Bassok,and Wong,2019;Regional Educational Laboratory,2021).Our findings indicate that teachers in full-and part-day classrooms use similar curriculum and assessment materials but that part-day classroom teachers have less access to structural r

222、esources,such as professional development or planning time to sup-port their implementation of these materials.More descriptive evidence on how teachers in part-day classrooms implement curriculum materials in ways 22that might differ from those of teachers in full-day classrooms and on the specific

223、 needs of teachers who have multiple classes of children per day can help researchers better understand why part-day pro-grams demonstrate less effectiveness than full-day programs and identify how to close this gap.Increased understanding of differences in structural resources between part-day and

224、full-day public schoolbased pre-K programs and how those differences relate to student outcomes can inform policymakers as they consider how best to use avail-able resources to expand pre-K.For example,part-day programs have expanded in Colorado,where state funding supports only 10 hours per week pe

225、r child.However,citing new evidence that the full-day programs are more effective than the part-day pro-grams,some advocates have pointed out that favoring expansion through part-day slots means that fewer low-income and vulnerable children can enroll in full-day programs(Atteberry,Bassok,and Wong,2

226、019;Eason,2024;Schimke,2024).What Other Structural Characteristics,Such as Program Oversight,Are Associated with Differences in Public SchoolBased Pre-K Program Implementation?Our findings highlight variation in access to instruc-tional resources,such as planning time,professional learning,and instr

227、uctional alignment practices.However,there are many other structural charac-teristics that could be associated with variation in how teachers in public schoolbased programs use instructional materials,such as curricula and assess-ments,and how their classrooms are or are not inte-grated into the bro

228、ader school environment.For example,oversight of programs can have a large impact on what materials teachers use,the level of autonomy they have to use homegrown or adapted materials,and the amount and type of professional learning to which they have access.Whether teachers teach in mixed-age classr

229、ooms,teach predominantly 3-year-olds,teach predominantly 4-year-olds,or teach in“transitional kindergarten”classrooms that enroll children over age 5 might also be associated with their use of instructional resources.Finally,the extent to which principals engage with the pre-K classrooms in their sc

230、hools can affect how integrated teachers feel into their school community and how much intentional instructional alignment occurs across pre-K classrooms and across early grades(Little et al.,2024).Future administrations of the PKTS can include questions about these,and other,structural characterist

231、ics that might shed light on how design decisions affect instructional delivery and teacher experiences in school-based pre-K.LimitationsThere are several limitations of our study.First,lim-ited publicly available data on school-based pre-K teachers required us to modify our typical weighting proced

232、ure for the American Educator Panels(AEP)surveys.As described in Grant et al.,2025a,although several national data sources provide demographic characteristics for public schoolbased teachers,those sources do not include pre-K teachers or do not disaggregate pre-K teachers from kindergarten teach-ers

233、.Typically,we use the National Center for Educa-tion Statistics National Teacher and Principal Survey person-level demographics to generate survey weights for surveys of K12 teachers.However,this federal dataset does not include pre-K teachers.Instead,we used data on public employees in the pre-K/ki

234、ndergarten occupational group of the American Community Survey(ACS)to gener-ate the weights.Because this data source does not disaggregate pre-K and kindergarten teachers,we assumed that the distribution of race/ethnicity and age of pre-K teachers and kindergarten teachers was the same when generati

235、ng the weights.We then compared these estimates with those from the 2019 NSECE(NSECE Project Team,2021)and determined that this assumption was reasonable.We therefore felt comfortable using ACS data for some weights.Second,we caution readers that the findings in this report are not generalizable to

236、all publicly funded pre-K programs.Publicly funded pre-K pro-grams in the United States are located in private cen-ters and in public schools,but our survey included 23responses from only public schoolbased pre-K teachers.Moreover,in focusing on public school teachers,our sample included teachers in

237、 tuition-based programs located in public schools,teachers in locally funded public pre-K programs,and teachers in state-funded or federally funded public programs.This diversity of funding arrangements is unique to the pre-K sector,which includes no-cost and paid programs offered in public schools.

238、We are unable to disaggregate findings by whether a teacher works for a state-funded pre-K program,a locally funded program,or a program overseen by a different entity.This is because public data that would allow us to identify program funding do not exist,and we did not ask teachers to report the f

239、unding source of their program or of the students in their classroom.We did not ask teachers to report the funding source of their program because of the complexity of this question,given the prevalence of blended or braided funding sources,and the low likelihood(according to our survey pilot)that t

240、eachers would be able to answer this item with certainty.Third,because of limited space on the survey,we could not ask about many things related to instruc-tional resources that might also influence the rela-tionships we describe in this report.For example,in this survey,we asked teachers to name th

241、e two com-mercially available curriculum materials that they used most frequently,but nearly one-third reported using more than two commercially available materi-als.Therefore,we consider our results to be illustra-tive but not comprehensive.For example,we did not ask about time use for each curricu

242、lum material,which we have done in other AEP surveys of K12 teachers.Understanding the share of instructional time spent using specific materials could help unpack the extent to which teachers are mixing and match-ing materials.We plan to explore these questions around instructional material use in

243、future surveys.Finally,our results rely on individual responses to survey items and should be strictly interpreted as descriptive characterizations of patterns in teachers responses.They are not intended to suggest causality.24Notes1 Publicly funded programs include those receiving federal,state,and

244、/or local dollars.2 We examined teacher survey responses for differences by the following respondent characteristics:gender(male or female),race and ethnicity(White,Black or African American,Hispanic or Latinx,or other race or ethnicity),and years of teaching How This Analysis Was ConductedEach pre-

245、K survey respondent was assigned a weight to ensure that estimates reflect the national population of teachers.Characteristics that factor into this process include descriptors at the individual level(e.g.,age,race/ethnicity)and school level(e.g.,school size,locale).More information about survey sam

246、pling and weighting is available in our technical report(Grant et al.,2025b).This report examines teachers perceptions of their curriculum materials,assessment materials,and instruc-tional planning time.The survey defined curriculum materials as“materials that outline a predetermined plan for the le

247、arning experiences through which children acquire knowledge,skills,abilities,and understanding.”To understand the curriculum materials that teachers used,we asked teachers who reported using commercial curriculum materials,either exclusively or in combination with other materials that they created t

248、hemselves,to provide the names of the two materials that they used most frequently.We then coded the responses to iden-tify whether teachers used only comprehensive curricula,only domain-specific curricula,or a combination of comprehensive and domain-specific curricula.We were able to code 1,128 of

249、the 1,329 responses provided for curriculum name 1(85 percent),and we identified the remaining responses as assessments(1.6 percent);supplemental materials,such as those purchased from online resource aggregators like Teachers Pay Teach-ers(4.3 percent);not specific enough to code(e.g.,the responden

250、t provided the name of the publisher but not the specific material;6.7 percent);or unknown(2.3 percent).For curriculum name 2,we were able to code 777 of 1,036 responses provided(75 percent),and we identified the remaining responses as assessments(2.8 per-cent),supplemental materials(11.4 percent),n

251、ot specific enough to code(5.6 percent),or unknown(5.3 percent).We used a similar approach to analyze the assessments that teachers used.The survey defined assessments as“evaluation tools used to measure student learning that have predetermined guidelines for administration,scoring,and interpretatio

252、n of results.Do not include developmental screenings such as hearing or vision.”We were able to code 1,013 of the 1,047 responses provided for assessment name 1(97 percent).For assessment name2,we were able to code 473 of 983 responses provided(48 percent).Two RAND researchers used information on pu

253、blisher websites to code curriculum and assessment materials as comprehensive,which we defined as covering multiple instructional domains(e.g.,language and literacy,math,SEL),or domain-specific,which we defined as covering a single domain(e.g.,language and literacy or math).We matched teachers respo

254、nses to school-level data from the 20202021 Common Core of Data to enable us to compare responses for teachers in schools with different demographic profiles.We do not present these analyses because we did not find consistent evidence of variation in responses by school size,school type,urbanicity,s

255、tudent demographics or poverty,teacher education,teacher experience,or teacher union membership.All estimates presented in this report are sample-wide or subgroup-specific estimates that are unadjusted for statistical controls.We used linear regression models to test whether estimates for a particul

256、ar subgroup dif-ferred at the p 0.05 level from estimates for the reference subgroup in that category without the use of any statistical controls.Because the intent of this report is to provide exploratory,descriptive information rather than to test specific hypotheses,we did not make statistical ad

257、justments for multiple comparisons.experience.We also examined survey responses by the following school characteristics:locale(urban or not urban),high poverty(which we categorize as schools in which more than 50 percent of enrolled students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch),major

258、ity students of color(which we categorize as schools in which more than 50 percent of enrolled students are identified as non-White),and school grade configuration(which we catego-rize as early childhood only birth to age five or elementary e.g.,pre-K to 5th grade,pre-K to 8th grade).25References Ab

259、ry,Tashia,Scott Latham,Daphna Bassok,and Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch,“Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers Beliefs About Early School Competencies:Misalignment Matters for Kindergarten Adjustment,”Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Vol.31,2nd Quarter 2015.Allen,LaRue,and Bridget B.Kelly,eds.,Transformin

260、g the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8:A Unifying Foundation,The National Academies,2015.Atteberry,Allison,Dapha Bassok,and Vivian C.Wong,“The Effects of Full-Day Prekindergarten:Experimental Evidence of Impacts on Childrens School Readiness,”EdWorkingPaper:19-79,Annenberg Institute at Bro

261、wn University,June 2019.Barnett,Steven W.,and Kwanghee Jung,“Are Public School Preschool Programs More Academic?Auspice-Related Variations in Preschool Practice in the United States,”National Institute for Early Education Research Working Paper,May 2024.Bellows,Laura,Daphna Bassok,and Anna J.Markowi

262、tz,“Teacher Turnover in Early Childhood Education:Longitudinal Evidence from the Universe of Publicly Funded Programs in Louisiana,”EdWorkingPaper:21-453,Annenberg Institute at Brown University,August 2021.Bredekamp,Sue,Linda Espinosa,Rebekah Hutton,and Amy Stephens,eds.,A New Vision for High-Qualit

263、y Preschool Curriculum,National Academies of Sciences,Engineering,and Medicine,National Academies Press,2024.Burchinal,Margaret,Nathan Vandergrift,Robert Pianta,and Andrew Mashburn,“Threshold Analysis of Association Between Child Care Quality and Child Outcomes for Low-Income Children in Pre-Kinderg

264、arten Programs,”Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Vol.25,No.2,2nd Quarter 2010.Bureau of Labor Statistics,“Occupational Outlook Handbook:Preschool Teachers,”webpage,August 29,2024.As of January 17,2025:https:/www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/preschool-teachers.htmCarver-Thomas,Desiree

265、,and Linda Darling-Hammond,Teacher Turnover:Why It Matters and What We Can Do About It,Learning Policy Institute,August 16,2017.Clements Douglas H.,Julie Sarama,Mary Elaine Spitler,Alissa A.Lange,and Christopher B.Wolfe,“Mathematics Learned by Young Children in an Intervention Based on Learning Traj

266、ectories:A Large-Scale Cluster Randomized Trial,”Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,Vol.42,No.2,March 2011.Denker,Hannah,and Allison Atteberry,“Where Has All the Time Gone?Describing Time Use in Full-vs.Half-Day Pre-Kindergarten,”Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Vol.68,3rd Quarter 2024.

267、Doan,Sy,Julia H.Kaufman,Ashley Woo,Andrea Prado Tuma,Melissa Kay Diliberti,and Sabrina Lee,How States Are Creating Conditions for Use of High-Quality Instructional Materials in K12 Classrooms:Findings from the 2021 American Instructional Resources Survey,RAND Corporation,RR-A134-13,2022.As of Novemb

268、er 22,2024:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.htmlDoan,Sy,Joshua Eagan,David Grant,and Julia H.Kaufman,American Instructional Resources Surveys:2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A134-24,2024.As of January 17,2025:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_re

269、ports/RRA134-24.html Doan,Sy,Elizabeth D.Steiner,and Rakesh Pandey,Teacher Well-Being and Intentions to Leave in 2024:Findings from the 2024 State of the American Teacher Survey,RAND Corporation,RR-A1108-12,2024.As of December 5,2024:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-12.htmlEason,Bri

270、an,“The Cost of Universal Pre-K in Colorado:Thousands of At-Risk Kids Got Less Classroom Time,”Colorado Sun,March 6,2024.Fischer,Adrienne,and Matt Weyer,“50-State Comparison:Early Care and Education Governance,”Education Commission of the States,October 6,2024.Friedman-Krauss,Allison H.,W.Steven Bar

271、nett,Katherine S.Hodges,Karin A.Garver,Tracy Merriman Jost,G.G.Weisenfeld,and Jennifer K.Duer,The State of Preschool 2023:State Preschool Yearbook,National Institute for Early Education Research,Rutgers Graduate School of Education,2024.Gormley,William T.,Deborah Phillips,and Sara Anderson,“The Effe

272、cts of Tulsas Pre-K Program on Middle School Student Performance,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,Vol.37,No.1,Winter 2018.Grant,David,Anna Shapiro,Elizabeth D.Steiner,Joshua Eagan,Dorothy Seaman,Cyril Cherian,Gerald P.Hunter,Ashley Woo,Jill S.Cannon,Christopher Joseph Doss,and Lynn A.Karol

273、y,Creating a Nationally Representative Survey Panel of Public School Pre-K Teachers,RAND Corporation,RR-A3279-1,2025a.As of April 9,2025:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-1.htmlGrant,David,Anna Shapiro,Elizabeth D.Steiner,Ashley Woo,Jill S.Cannon,Christopher Joseph Doss,and Lynn A.Ka

274、roly,American Public-School Pre-K Teacher Survey:Spring 2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A3279-2,2025b.As of April 9,2025:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-2.htmlGray-Lobe,Guthrie,Parag A.Pathak,and Christopher R.Walters,“The Long-Term Effects of Un

275、iversal Preschool in Boston,”Quarterly Journal of Economics,Vol.138,No.1,February 2023.Greenberg,Erica,Rachel Lamb,Leonardo Restrepo,and Christina Weiland,“Different Settings,Different Experiences:Equity and Quality in DCs Mixed-Delivery Public Prekindergarten System,”The Urban Institute,June 14,202

276、4.Grunewald,Rob,Vanessa Palmer,and Ryan Nunn,“Examining Teacher Turnover in Early Care and Education,”Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,April 2022.3 We categorized a small number of written-in materials as supplemental if the material was commercially available but did not meet our definition of a

277、 curriculum material.Responses categorized as supplemental included manipulatives or materials purchased on online resource aggregators,such as Teachers Pay Teachers.4 Full-day programs can range from the length of a typical school day to as long as ten hours per day.Part-day programs offer fewer ho

278、urs than a typical school day and could range from as short as two hours to up to almost five hours per day.26Jenkins,Jade Marcus,and Greg J.Duncan,“Do Pre-Kindergarten Curricula Matter?”in Deborah A.Philips,MarkW.Lipsey,Kenneth A.Dodge,Ron Haskins,Dapha Bassok,Margaret R.Burchinal,Greg J.Duncan,Mar

279、k Dynarski,Katherine A.Magnuson,and Christina Weiland,eds.,The Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Pre-Kindergarten Effects,Brookings Institution,2017.Jenkins,Jade Marcus,Anamarie Auger Whitaker,Tutrang Nguyen,and Winnie Yu,“Distinctions Without a Difference?Preschool Curricula and Childrens De

280、velopment,”Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,Vol.12,No.3,August 9,2019.Kaufman,Julia H.,Sy Doan,Andrea Prado Tuma,Ashley Woo,Daniella Henry,and Rebecca Ann Lawrence,How Instructional Materials Are Used and Supported in U.S.K12 Classrooms:Findings from the 2019 American Instructional R

281、esources Survey,RAND Corporation,RR-A134-1,2020.As of November 22,2024:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-1.htmlLittle,Michael,“The New American Elementary School?Prekindergarten in Public Schools and Implications for the Build Back Better Framework,”Learning Curve,Urban Institute,Nove

282、mber 2021.Little,Michael,Timothy A.Drake,Lora Cohen-Vogel,and Jessica Eagle,“When School Doesnt Start at Age 5:Elementary Principal Leadership of Pre-K Programs,”Elementary School Journal,Vol.123,No.1,September 2022.Little,Michael,Tim Drake,Lora Cohen-Vogel,Austin Gragson,and Victor Cadilla,“Princip

283、al Leadership of Pre-K Programs in Elementary Schools:Evidence from North Carolina,”Educational Policy,OnlineFirst,September 12,2024.LoCasale-Crouch,Jennifer,Andrew J.Mashburn,Jason T.Downer,and Robert C.Pianta,“Pre-Kindergarten Teachers Use of Transition Practices and Childrens Adjustment to Kinder

284、garten,”Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Vol.23,No.1,1st Quarter 2008.McCormick,Meghan P.,Cullen MacDowell,Christina Weiland,JoAnn Hsueh,Michelle Maier,Mirjana Pralica,Samuel Maves,Catherine Snow,and Jason Sachs,“Instructional Alignment Is Associated with PreK Persistence:Evidence from the Boston

285、Public Schools,”Early Childhood Research Quarterly,Vol.67,2nd Quarter 2024.McCoy,Dana Charles,Hirokazu Yoshikawa,Kathleen M.Ziol-Guest,Greg J.Duncan,Holly S.Schindler,Katherine Magnuson,Rui Yang,Andrew Koepp,and Jack P.Shonkoff,“Impacts of Early Childhood Education on Medium-and Long-Term Educationa

286、l Outcomes,”Educational Researcher,Vol.46,No.8,November 2017.McElrath,Kevin,and Kurt Bauman,“Preschool Enrollment in the United States:20052019,”United States Census Bureau,SEHSD-WP2021-25,November 2021.Meloy,Beth,Madelyn Gardner,and Linda Darling-Hammond,Untangling the Evidence on Preschool Effecti

287、veness:Insights for Policymakers,Learning Policy Institute,January 31,2019.Moffett,Lillie,Amanda Weissman,Meghan McCormick,Christina Weiland,JoAnn Hsueh,Catherine Snow,and Jason Sachs,“Enrollment in Pre-K and Childrens Social-Emotional and Executive Functioning Skills:To What Extent Are Associations

288、 Sustained Across Time?”Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol.115,No.3,2023.National Association for the Education of Young Children,“DAP:Planning and Implementing an Engaging Curriculum to Achieve Meaningful Goals,”webpage,undated.As of January 31,2025:https:/www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statem

289、ents/dap/planning-curriculum National Center for Education Statistics,“School Pulse Panel:Surveying High-Priority,Education-Related Topics,”webpage,undated.As of January 21,2025:https:/nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.aspNational Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team,“National Survey of Ear

290、ly Care and Education(NSECE),United States,2019(ICPSR 37941),”dataset,Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research,November 1,2021.As of January 31,2025:https:/www.childandfamilydataarchive.org/cfda/archives/CFDA/studies/37941/versions/V3New Jersey Department of Education,“Early Chi

291、ldhood EducationPreschool,”webpage,undated.As of January 21,2025:https:/www.nj.gov/education/earlychildhood/preschool/Nguyen,Tutrang,Jade Marcus Jenkins,and Anamarie Auger Whitaker,“Are Content-Specific Curricula Differentially Effective in Head Start or State Prekindergarten Classrooms?”AERA Open,V

292、ol.4,No.2,2018.NSECE Project TeamSee National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team.Regional Education Laboratory Northwest,“Ask A REL:Full-Day Versus Half-Day PreschoolWhat Does the Research Say About Full-Day Versus Half-Day School-Based Preschool Programs?”Institute of Educational Scien

293、ces,Regional Educational Laboratory Program,February 1,2021.Schimke,Ann,“More Colorado Children Will Get State-Funded Full-Day Preschool Classes This Year,”Chalkbeat Colorado,July 25,2024.Stipek,Deborah,Megan Franke,Doug Clements,Dale Farran,and Cynthia Coburn,“PK-3:What Does It Mean For Instruction

294、?”Social Policy Report,Vol.30,No.2,Spring 2017.USAFacts,“Nearly Two-Thirds of Preschool-Aged Children Attend Early Education Programs,”October 3,2023.Vitello,Virginia E.,Nica Kyra N.Basuel,Emily S.White,Jessica E.Whittaker,Erik A.Ruzek,and Robert C.Pianta,“The Transition from Pre-K to Kindergarten:P

295、arent,Teacher,and Administrator Perspectives,”Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field,Vol.23,No,2,Winter 2020.Wasik,Barbara A.,and Emily K.Snell,“Synthesis of Preschool Dosage:How Quantity,Quality,and Content Impact Child Outcomes,”in Arthur J.Reynolds and Judy A.Temple,eds.,Susta

296、ining Early Childhood Learning Gains:Program,School,and Family Influences,Cambridge University Press,2019.Weiland,Christina,Rebecca Unterman,and Anna Shapiro,“The Kindergarten Hotspot:Literacy Skill Convergence Between Boston Prekindergarten Enrollees and Nonenrollees,”Child Development,Vol.92,No.2,

297、March/April 2021.What Works Clearinghouse,“Reviews of Individual Studies,”Institute of Education Sciences,webpage,undated.As of January 21,2025:https:/ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ReviewedStudies#/Woodyard,Henry T.,Tim R.Sass,and Ishtiaque Fazlul,The Efficacy of School-Based Pre-K Program Sites in a Metro-At

298、lanta School District,Georgia Policy Labs,Metro Atlanta Policy Lab for Education,July 2022.27AcknowledgmentsWe are extremely grateful to the teachers and working adults who have agreed to participate in the panels.We thank Brian Kim and Daniel Ibarrola for serving as the pre-K enrollment and survey

299、managers;Julie Newell,Tim Colvin,and Roberto Guevara for programming the enroll-ment and pre-K surveys;and Gerald Hunter and Ruolin Lu for serving as data managers.We appreciate the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian and AEP management pro-vided by Lisa Wagner.We are grateful to coll

300、eagues at the Gates Foundation for their support and collaboration.We thank Michael Little,Benjamin Master,and Elaine Wang for helpful feedback that greatly improved this report.We thank Anna Bloom for her editorial expertise and Monette Velasco for overseeing the publication process.RR-A3279-3RAND

301、is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure,healthier and more prosperous.RAND is nonprofit,nonpartisan,and committed to the publicinterest.Research IntegrityOur mission to help improve policy and

302、decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior.To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous,objective,and nonpartisan,we subject our research publ

303、ications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process;avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training,project screening,and a policy of mandatory disclosure;and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to t

304、he open publication of our research findings and recommendations,disclosure of the source of funding of published research,and policies to ensure intellectual independence.For more information,visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.RANDs publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of i

305、ts research clients and sponsors.is a registered trademark.Print and Electronic DistributionRightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.All users of the publication are permitted to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transfor

306、m and build upon the material,including for any purpose(including commercial)without further permission or fees being required.For more information on this publication,visit www.rand.org/t/RRA3279-3.2025 RAND CorporationAbout This ReportThis report presents findings from the first American Pre-K Tea

307、cher Survey(PKTS),a nationally representative survey of pre-K teachers in public schools across the United States,fielded through RANDs American Teacher Panel(ATP).The ATP is one of three survey panels that compose the American Edu-cator Panels(AEP),which are nationally representative samples of tea

308、chers,school leaders,and district leaders across the country.The panels are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Researchs Transpar-ency Initiative.If you are interested in using AEP data for your own surveys or analysis or in reading publications using AEP data,please email

309、 aeprand.org or visit www.rand.org/aep.RAND Education and LaborThis study was undertaken by RAND Education and Labor,a division of RAND that conducts research on early childhood through postsecondary education programs,workforce development,and programs and policies affecting work-ers,entrepreneursh

310、ip,and financial literacy and decisionmaking.This report is based on research funded by the Gates Foundation under INV-057303.The findings and conclusions we present are those of the authors and do not neces-sarily reflect positions or policies of the foundation.For more information and research on

311、these and other related topics,please visit gatesfoundation.org.More information about RAND can be found at www.rand.org.Questions about this report should be directed to ashapirorand.org,questions about the PKTS should be directed to esteinerrand.org,and questions about RAND Education and Labor should be directed to educationandlaborrand.org.www.rand.org