DSRT 837 Mock Dissertation Chapter One RubricName ___________

DSRT 837: Mock Dissertation: Chapter One Rubric
Name: _____________________________________________
Topic
Distinguished
Proficient
Apprentice
Novice
Overview, Background and Problem Statement, and Purpose of
the Study
(30pts possible)
Well-organized and descriptive overview leads the reader into
the background of the study and the problem. The problem
statement is concise, includes descriptor variables and informs
the reader of the exact purpose of the study
Includes an overview to the paper and briefly explains the
background for the study. The problem statement is concise and
informs the reader of purpose of the study but doesn’t clearly
describe the variables.
Limited overview with unclear background for the study. The
problem statement is stated
Unclear overview and/or background for the study. The problem
statement is not stated
Significance of the Study, Research Questions and Theoretical
Framework
(30pts possible)
Clear description of the significance of the study. Well written
research questions. Clear and descriptive theoretical framework.
Explains theories being investigated and how it relates to the
study’s research. Research is provided to support theories being
investigated.
Includes the significance of the study. Clear research questions
and provides the theoretical framework being investigated.
Limited research is provided to support theories of the research
study.

Limited description of the significance of the study. Research
questions are not clear. Theoretical framework is weak with no
research to support.
Does not contain the significance of the study. Does not list
research questions or theories that are being tested or evaluated
in the study.
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
(30pts possible)
Clearly describes and explains limitations and assumptions of
the study.
Describes limitations and assumptions of the study
Briefly describes limitations and assumptions of the study.
Does not provide limitations or assumptions of the study.
Definition of Terms and Summary
(30pts possible)
Clearly identifies and defines key terms of the study with
source information. Provides a well-written
summary/conclusion of Chapter One.
Identifies key terms of the study and provides some source
information for terms. Provides a summary/conclusion of
Chapter One.
Limited list of key terms with limited definitions and source
information. Summary/Conclusion is weak.
Does not list key terms or definitions and/or does not provide a
Summary/Conclusion for Chapter One.
APA Format and Citations, Mechanic, Grammar, and Proofing
(30pts possible)
Full citation using proper APA format with no errors; Chapter
One is well written from start to finish, with no spelling,
grammar or use of English errors; Chapter One is well
organized, clear and presents ideas so another researcher could
replicate the study.
Full or partial citation with minor APA formatting errors;
Chapter One is moderately written, with minimal spelling
errors, grammar or use of English errors; Chapter One is

moderately organized, clear and presents ideas in somewhat
coherent way.
Partial citation with major formatting errors or no citation;
Chapter One is not well written, and contains many spelling
errors, and/or grammar errors and/or use of English errors;
Chapter One is poorly organized, lacks clarity and/or does not
present ideas in a coherent way.
Does not properly use APA format; Chapter One is missing
components and does not flow; Contains numerous grammatical
errors which impacts readability.
Running head: EQUITY OF SC FUNDED 4K CLASSROOMS
1
EQUITY OF SC FUNDED 4K CLASSROOMS 24
Equity of South Carolina Funded Four-Year-Old Kindergarten
Classrooms: Factors Affecting Kindergarten Readiness
Introduction Overview
“Kasserian Ingera? How are the children?” (Vasagar, 2012). The
traditional greeting of the fabled African tribe, Masai,
recognizes the value of the next generation and understands
“society cannot be well unless all the children are well”
(Vasagar, 2012). The heart and future of a society hinge on the

well-being of all its children. A collective impact is necessary
to ensure that all students achieve and thrive. Investments in
high-quality early childhood education programs are needed to
ensure all children have the essential kindergarten readiness
skills in the areas of language/literacy, mathematics, social
foundations, and physical well-being/motor development to be
successful.
Children’s early experiences lay the groundwork for lifelong
learning and success. Moss and Haydon’s (2008) research found
high-quality early childhood education fosters and supports
children’s well-being and their ability to interact effectively
with their environment. Many young “children live in
communities with significant barriers that can prevent them
from reaching their full potential” (Ready at Five, 2019).
Children who enter kindergarten, not demonstrating the social -
emotional, cognitive, and physical skills needed for success,
will continue to struggle academically throughout their school
years. Therefore, states need to fund pre-kindergarten programs
to ensure all students are kindergarten-ready.
Due to limited funding for education, many states, including
South Carolina, have created homogeneous groupings of low
socioeconomic levels within four-year-old kindergarten
programs to address the educational and socio-emotional needs
of children of poverty. However, current research highlights the
saturation of low socioeconomic levels in classrooms lowers
classroom quality and experiences (Pianta et al., 2005). Early
childhood education programs that limit access to only at-risk
students increase the probability that academic achievement
gaps will continue to widen since at-risk children do not have
the opportunity to engage in a social environment with children
from different background experiences (Edwards, 2007;
LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2005; Reid &
Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007).
Background and Problem Statement
Early childhood education history is often linked back to
January 1965 when Lady Bird Johnson held a White House tea

to announce federal funding for preschool classes that would
break the vicious cycle of poverty (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
The federally funded Head Start early childhood program
introduced the idea that early education of our young children
was a public responsibility. After decades of early childhood
education program evaluations, state legislators and educators
both endorse the need to develop and fund high-quality early
childhood programs. States’ policymakers have increased
funding for early childhood education programs from $200
million in 1988 to $7.5 billion in 2018 (Education Commission
of the States, 2019; National Center for Children in Poverty,
2000). “A robust body of research shows that children who
participate in high-quality preschool programs have better
health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes than those
who do not participate” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
Greater awareness of early childhood as a critical
developmental period has led to the aim of promoting high-
quality children’s experiences in pre-kindergarten programs
through a focus on healthy social/behavior development and
academic/cognitive learning (Biddle, Crawford, & Seth-Purdie,
2017). Early childhood education is an essential foundation for
developing learning behaviors and skills necessary for future
success. Moss and Haydon (2008) defined education “as
fostering and supporting the general well-being and
development of children and young people, and their ability to
interact effectively with their environment and to live a good
life” (p. 2). Early childhood education programs have the
potential to give all children a jump start to kindergarten by
supporting both educational and social behaviors. High-quality
early childhood education programs are the key to ensuring all
children have equal access to learning opportunities and
experiences.
Children from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds
enrolled in high-quality early childhood programs enter
kindergarten academically ready (Ansari, Pianta, Whittaker,
Vitiello, & Ruzek, 2019). The U.S. Department of Education

(2015) continues to stress the need for “significant new
investments in high-quality early education” to help close the
school readiness gaps between disadvantaged children and their
more advantaged peers. The Reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also highlighted the need
for states to make early childhood education a priority,
especially for children identified as at-risk for academic
success. The substantial amount of public funding directed at
early childhood education programs has increased from $200
million in 1988 to $7.5 billion in 2018 (Education Commission
of the States, 2019; National Center for Children in Poverty,
2000). This increase in funding has increased the demand for
additional research on the implications of structural
programming requirements, student demographics (including
race, gender, and socioeconomic levels), and composition of
diversity on program quality and kindergarten readiness.
Most children in the United States have their first school
experiences in four-year-old early childhood programs rather
than in kindergarten (Hustedt & Barnett, 2011). Pre-
kindergarten initiatives vary from state to state; however, they
all share some common characteristics. First, all pre-
kindergarten programs are voluntary. Second, programs are
funded and directed by each states’ education department that
identifies early learning standards that range from academic
content knowledge, social/emotional development, motor
development, and language development (Hustedt & Barnett,
2011). Also, states have identified required structural
components to receive early childhood funding; these structural
components include the location of service, length of the
program, teacher certification, and class size. Most states have
limited early childhood funding to only children meeting at-risk
criteria such as socioeconomic level, ethnicity, or disability;
also, some states provide preschool funding based on
geographical locations. For example, South Carolina’s early
childhood funding system segregates children in four-year-old
kindergarten based on families’ socioeconomic conditions,

however, only funds these programs if the families reside in a
rural, high-poverty county.
Currently, many states are solely funding four-year-old
kindergarten programs for at-risk students, which limits the
cultural and economic diversity needed for heterogeneous
classrooms. Research studies centered around socioeconomic
diversity and educational impact are necessary to justify the
money spent on numerous segregated at-risk four-year-old
kindergarten programs across the nation. Recent research
highlights that the saturation of poverty in the classroom is
related to lower classroom quality even though early childhood
education programs aim to address the educational and socio-
emotional needs of children from low-income backgrounds.
Socioeconomic segregation of children may negatively impact
the cognitive and social development of children, along with
perpetuating the educational gap seen along socioeconomic
lines. States’ policies and procedures, in regards to student
selection and structural features of programs related to
classroom, teacher, and child characteristics, may create
unintended consequences. More research is needed to determine
if the lack of racial and economic diversity is impacting the
potential benefits of early childhood education programs.
High-quality preschool programs should enhance the early
learning experiences for all children and develop the
background knowledge and skills necessary for school readiness
(Pelatti et al., 2016). Research is divided and often not
conclusive on what constitutes essential components to create
high-quality early childhood programs that impact academic and
social outcomes. Numerous research studies have analyzed
structural components and requirements of early childhood
education programs and the impact on student achievement;
however, all of these studies have been unable to specify w hich
elements lead to measurable kindergarten readiness (Bainbridge
et al., 2005; Bowne et al., 2017; Clifford et al., 2005; Magnuson
et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016). Recent research has suggested
four possible mechanisms which impact the quality of early

childhood education programs: 1) differences in structural
components and curriculum/teaching; 2) peer effects on
cognitive learning; 3) peer effects on social development; and
4) parent involvement (Reid & Ready, 2013). Current literature
acknowledges that structural components are not the only
variables in creating a high-quality early childhood education
program; classroom diversity and sociocultural learning
opportunities can positively impact the learning outcomes
(Clifford et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016; Pianta et al., 2005;
Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007).
Few research studies have focused on program design,
classroom behaviors, and student achievement predictors of
classroom quality for publicly supported at-risk pre-
kindergarten programs with limited socioeconomic and ethnic
diversity. Schechter and Bye’s (2007) research highlighted the
importance of a diverse composition of students in early
childhood classrooms and the requirement of these classes to
incorporate activities where students can learn from each
other’s experiences and background knowledge. Reid and
Ready’s (2013) research study suggests that all children in an
integrated early childhood education program learn more than a
classroom primarily composed of children from low-income
backgrounds with the same ethnic backgrounds. The research
studies by Reid and Ready (2013) as well as Schechter and Bye
(2007) show a correlation between achievement skills and
integrated socioeconomic and ethnic classrooms; however,
neither of these studies utilized a standardized achievement
measure to determine the relationship between the diversity
composition of a program and academic success.
The regular and consistent patterns of positive interactions
between teachers and peers impact classroom experiences
(Brown, Jones, LaRusso, & Aber, 2010). With current funding
policies and procedures, South Carolina’s structural design of
early childhood programs is trapping the youngest of South
Carolina’s at-risk children in a cycle of educational poverty.
South Carolina’s pre-kindergarten policy limits access to a

heterogeneous grouping of students, which eliminates the
sociocultural benefits of exposing children to a variety of
cultures and environments to enhance problem-solving and
critical thinking. Ultimately, in South Carolina, this design has
led to not only socioeconomic segregation but also segregation
of ethnic races in four-year-old kindergarten classrooms. By
eliminating the cultural and economic diversity in these
classrooms, South Carolina has diminished the “social and
cultural nature of the developmental process and the role of
peers assisting each other in learning” (Edwards, 2007, p. 84).
Additional research is needed to evaluate the impact of
kindergarten readiness in programs serving only at-risk four-
year-old students as compared to a more diverse classroom
population where children can learn from each other.
Due to the limited state funding available for early childhood
education, programmatic and structural components of four-
year-old pre-kindergarten programs must be providing the
social-emotional, cognitive, and physical skills necessary for
students to be kindergarten ready. South Carolina is in the early
stages of implementation of the Child Early Reading and
Development Education Program (CERDEP) for at-risk students
and the requirement of a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment
(KRA) for all 5K students. Data are being collected in South
Carolina to determine the impact of pre-kindergarten programs
on kindergarten readiness; however, no research study has
evaluated all of these components. The primary goal of this
quantitative study was to use the S.C. kindergarten data to
investigate how kindergarten readiness scores compare between
children attending a structured four-year-old kindergarten
program or not. The next goal was to investigate how the
kindergarten readiness scores compared based on the location
(public or community-based) of CERDEP classrooms. Finally,
the study was to compare the differences in kindergarten
readiness assessment scores between white, African American,
and Hispanic students who attended a four-year-old
kindergarten program.

The research will provide school district leaders and state
policymakers guidance and evidence of potential changes in
funding or structural components needed to ensure all students
receive a high-quality early childhood education program that
prepares them for kindergarten success. Ultimately, the study
would be a tool for parents and community members to identify
the early childhood programs which positively impact
kindergarten readiness and help minimize the educational
achievement gaps between all populations. South Carolina
parents deserve the right to know which types of early
childhood programs will produce quality academic achievement
and kindergarten readiness so that they can make informed
decisions on the best program for their child.
Purpose of the Study
State and local policymakers are searching for kindergarten
readiness data to support the continued funding of early
childhood programs. They are looking for features of interest,
including whether the programs are full- or part-day, housed in
school or community settings, universal or targeted groups of
students, staffed by certified teachers or individuals with less
formal training. Research has shown that children who have had
high-quality preschool classroom experiences will enter
kindergarten more school ready with better language
development, reading skills, and math skills (LoCasale-Crouch,
2007).A cyclical pattern of inequality in education and income
may be attributed to a lack of access to quality early childhood
programs (Bainbridge et al., 2005) as well as a lack of access to
an early childhood setting that incorporates opportunities for
interactions with children from different backgrounds. Reid and
Ready’s (2013) research found that children’s learning in
classrooms with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic composition
equals or even rivals the impact of children’s family
backgrounds in a year of schooling. However, lawmakers have
not had access to many research studies analyzing the impact of
the ethnic and socioeconomic composition within the programs
on academic readiness.

Current literature acknowledges that structural components are
not the only variables in creating a high-quality early childhood
education program; classroom diversity and sociocultural
learning opportunities can positively impact the learning
outcomes (Clifford et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016; Pianta et
al., 2005; Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007). The
purposes of this study were to test Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory (1978) by comparing enrollment in four-year-old
kindergarten programs, comparing locations of CERDEP four-
year-old kindergarten programs, and by comparing ethnicity in
four-year-old kindergarten programs in terms of the
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment scale scores in the domains
of language/literacy, mathematics, social foundations, physical
well-being/motor development and overall readiness of students
in a rural, high-poverty South Carolina county.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this research. 1) How did
students who attended a structured four-year-old kindergarten
program perform on the Fall 2018 Kindergarten Readiness
Assessment (KRA) in the areas of language/literacy,
mathematics, social foundations, physical well-being/motor
development, and overall kindergarten readiness as compared to
students who did not attend a four-year-old kindergarten
program? 2) In Fall 2018, how did CERDEP qualified students
in a public school setting perform on the kindergarten readiness
assessment as compared to CERDEP students who attended a
four-year-old kindergarten program housed at Head Start or
First Step daycares? 3) In Fall 2018, what were the differences
in kindergarten readiness assessment scores between ethnic
groups who attended a four-year-old kindergarten program?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study is based on John
Dewey’s and L. S. Vygotsky’s similar ideas regarding the
relationship between everyday activities and social environment
play on the learning process (Glassman, 2001). Although the

two theorists do not agree on the process or goals for education,
both theorists believe strongly that “natural human activity
serves as the major impetus for learning” (Glassman, 2001, p.
3). Both Dewey and Vygotsky believe the educational process
requires attention to social history, experiences or culture, and
human inquiry.
Dewey’s and Vygotsky’s position on the most critical
educational approaches vary greatly; however, both theorists
agree that “the human condition is based in social interactions”
(Glassman, 2001, p. 3). Dewey believed in long term projects
where the teacher acts as a facilitator to guide students to set
goals and choose a direction that interests them through the
exploration of everyday life situations. Vygotsky, however,
“wants to use the educational process to teach new members of
the social community how to use important culturally developed
tools in an effective manner” (Glassman, 2001, p. 4). Both
theorists' educational approach requires children to be engaged
in social interactions, whether teacher or student-driven.
Vygotsky’s educational approach of the zone of proximal
development requires a teacher to provide the learner with
scaffolding to support the student’s evolving understanding of
complex skills. The following figure depicts Vygotsky’s zone of
proximal development where the “distance between the actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Figure 1. Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal
development. This zone is the area of exploration for which the
student is cognitively, socially, and physically prepared, but
requires help and social interaction to fully develop. Vygotsky’s
Sociocultural Theory. (n.d.) Retrieved
from http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/events/archive/aligning
collaborativelearning/Vygotsky.pdf
Collaborative learning and modeling are strategies supported by

Vygotsky to facilitate a “higher level of understanding under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
highlighted the importance of peer interactions and differing
peer abilities.
Sociocultural theorists believe group members should have
different levels of ability, so more advanced peers can help less
advanced peers. Therefore, limiting early education programs to
solely at-risk students who often have the same ethnicity and
socioeconomic level can potentially limit the learning
opportunity for our students in most need. States’ policymakers
may need to reevaluate their approach to restricting funding for
four-year-old kindergarten solely to at-risk students, which
often limits the ethnic and economic diversity. This segregation
of children may negatively impact the cognitive and social
development of children, along with perpetuating the
educational gap seen along ethnic and socioeconomic lines.
More research is needed to evaluate the impact of state-funded
four-year-old kindergarten programs on kindergarten readiness
concerning the location of programs as well as the ethnic and
economic composition within early childhood education
programs.
Limitations of the Study
Despite the researcher’s best efforts, the results of the study
were affected by the following limitations: 1) Two school
districts and nine schools were studied, so test administrators’
training for the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) may
vary between schools and districts. Although, district KRA
trainers received the same State Department of Education
training material to use with their kindergarten teachers, and all
teachers had to pass the KRA content and KRA inter-rater
reliability assessment with an 80% before administering the
assessment. 2) Testing environment conditions such as lighting,
temperature, and noise distractions may have varied from
classroom to classroom, school to school, and district to
district. 3) This study only evaluated one rural South Carolina

county’s kindergarten readiness scores. Therefore, results may
not represent scores from other counties due to differences in
four-year-old pre-kindergarten programs, geographic locations,
and socioeconomic levels within the community.
Assumptions of the Study
The study accepted the following assumptions. 1) All
parents/guardians completing the school districts’ five-year-old
kindergarten enrollment paperwork understood the questions
and correctly answered them. Enrollment questions included
whether their child attended a four-year-old kindergarten
program, what type of program their child attended, the length
of the program (half-day or full-day), and knew the name of the
provider. 2) Demographic and prior care program coding in the
state database PowerSchool and Enrich system were correct. 3)
All students had an equal opportunity to participate in the
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment within the first 45 days of
school.
Definition of Terms
The study used the following definitions.
Approaching Readiness - The student demonstrates some
foundational skills and behaviors that prepare him or her for
kindergarten standards (South Carolina Education Oversight
Committee, 2019). The performance descriptor is the KRA
overall readiness or domain scale score of 258 – 269 (Maryland
State Department of Education, 2019).
Child Early Reading and Development Education Program
(CERDEP) – South Carolina legislation codified with the
approval of the Read to Succeed law, Act 284, on June 11,
2014. CERDEP requires (1) programs to have a reading
proficiency plan, (2) successful administration of a four -year-
old readiness assessment, (3) developmental and learning
support necessary for kindergarten readiness, (4) parenting
education, and (5) identification of community organizations to
support early literacy efforts. The South Carolina Department of
Education oversees participating public school district
programs, and South Carolina First Steps for School Readiness

oversees Head Start, private child care programs, and other non-
district providers. Students’ families must meet Medicaid
eligibility or have a family income at or below 185% of the
Federal Poverty definition to qualify for CERDEP. (South
Carolina Department of Education, 2018a).
Community-based – For this study, community-based locations
include four-year-old kindergarten programs provided at First
Steps Child Care facilities or Head Start Programs within the
county. (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a).
Demonstrating Readiness – KRA performance level descriptor
of Demonstrating Readiness shows overall readiness or domain
scale score of 270 – 298 (Maryland State Department of
Education, 2019). The student demonstrates foundational skills
and behaviors that prepare him or her for kindergarten standards
(South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2019).
Early Childhood Education Program – These are predominately
three-year-old pre-kindergarten programs or four-year-old
kindergarten programs (Hustedt & Barnett, 2011). For this
study, references to early childhood education programs will be
solely four-year-old kindergarten programs.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – The Lyndon
B. Johnson administration’s War on Poverty campaign passed
the ESEA act. The original goal of the law was to improve
educational equity by providing federal funds to support
districts serving students from lower-income families. ESEA
has been reauthorized eight times. The most recent
reauthorization was in December 2015 when President Obama
and Congress signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.)
Emerging Readiness – KRA Performance level descriptor of
Emerging Readiness based on a KRA overall readiness or
domain scale score of 202 – 257 (Maryland State Department of
Education, 2019). A student demonstrates limited foundational
skills and behaviors that prepare him or her for kindergarten
standards (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee,
2019).

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – In December 2015,
President Obama and lawmakers reauthorized the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by revamping 2002 No
Child Left Behind ESEA reauthorization. The central goal of
ESSA is to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for
children from lower-income families. (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.)
First Steps Child Care/Public – A CERDEP funded community-
based center housed in a private registered child care facility,
income-based, developmentally appropriate education program.
The program must adhere to best practices, using research-based
curriculum and assessments. These programs must meet DSS
regulations and SCDE Guidelines (South Carolina Department
of Education, 2019).
Head Start – A program of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services that provides comprehensive early childhood
education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to
low-income children and their families (South Carolina
Department of Education, 2019).
Informal Child Care – A family member or other caregivers
provide child care in an unregulated home that is not subject to
regulations or formal guidelines (South Carolina Department of
Education, 2019).
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) – The KRA is an
assessment administered to each child entering public school
kindergarten within the first 45 days of the school year in South
Carolina. The assessment provides information on children’s
readiness for kindergarten in four domains: Language and
Literacy, Mathematics, Physical Well-Being, and Motor
Development, and Social Foundations (South Carolina
Education Oversight Committee, 2019).
Language and Literacy – KRA readiness assessment domain
measuring skills such as reading, writing, speaking, and
listening (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee,
2019).
Mathematics – The KRA readiness assessment mathematics’

domain measures skills such as counting comparison and sorting
Observational rubric – KRA items describe specific behaviors
or skills to be observed by the teacher during typical classroom
activities, lunchroom, or recess areas. Teachers use the rubric to
assign up to two points for these skills (Maryland State
Performance level descriptors – KRA evaluates students’
kindergarten readiness as either Demonstrating Readiness,
Approaching Readiness, or Emerging Readiness. Students
demonstrate the skills and behaviors that reflect their readiness
to engage in instruction based on kindergarten content standards
(Maryland State Department of Education, 2019).
Performance task – KRA items consist of an activity that is
completed by the child using manipulatives to allow the student
to demonstrate the skill assessed. These items are scored with a
rubric and can be work one to three points (Maryland State
Physical Well-Being and Motor Development – KRA readiness
assessment domain measuring students’ abilities such as
dexterity, muscular coordination, and balance (South Carolina
Education Oversight Committee, 2019).
Prior care – Prior care are the categories of early child care
enrollment within twelve months before starting kindergarten
Private four-year-old kindergarten – Student enrolled in a full-
day private four-year-old kindergarten program (South Carolina
Public four-year-old kindergarten – Student enrolled in a South
Carolina public school (South Carolina Department of
Education, 2019).
Pupil in Poverty – South Carolina identifies students from
families of low socioeconomic as a pupil in poverty (PIP) in
Power School (South Carolina Department of Educatio n, 2019).
Selected response – KRA selected-response items consist of a
question or prompt where children choose one of three answers.

The child indicates his or her response by touching or saying
one of the three answer options. Each item is worth one poi nt
(Maryland State Department of Education, 2019).
Social Foundations – KRA readiness assessment domain
measuring students’ abilities to follow the rules, cooperate with
others, ask for help, problem solve, and task persistence (South
Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2019).
South Carolina First Steps for School Readiness – First Steps
oversees CERDEP private child care programs and other non-
district providers. First Steps provides family choices of pre -
kindergarten between school districts or eligible non-district
settings (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a).
Summary
State and local policymakers are searching for kindergarten
readiness data to support the continued funding of early
childhood programs. They are looking for high-quality features
of interest, including whether the programs are full- or part-day,
housed in school or community settings, universal or targeted
groups of students, staffed by certified teachers or individuals
with less formal training. Children who have high-quality
preschool classroom experiences will enter kindergarten more
school ready with better language development, reading skills,
and math skills (LoCasale-Crouch, 2007). A cyclical pattern of
inequality in education and income may attribute to a lack of
access to quality early childhood programs (Bainbridge et al.,
2005) as well as a lack of access to an early childhood setting
that incorporates opportunities for interactions with children
from different backgrounds. Reid and Ready’s (2013) research
found that children’s learning in classrooms with diverse
socioeconomic composition equals or even rivals the impact of
children’s family backgrounds in a year of schooling. However,
lawmakers have not had access to many research studies
analyzing the effects of the socioeconomic and ethnic
composition within the classrooms and program sites on
academic readiness.
Helburn and Howes (1996) found evidence that parents,

especially ones with limited education or low socioeconomic
status, struggle to evaluate the quality of child care centers, and
many end up selecting low-quality programs that may be
harmful to their children. Parents from limited educational
homes or low socioeconomic backgrounds have limited options
for early childhood education programs to enroll their children.
Many times these programs are only for at-risk students even
though research has started to show limited diversity within
early childhood programs can negatively affect academic
achievement and students’ kindergarten readiness (Reid &
Ready, 2013). Therefore, leaving the choice of early education
and care of young children to parents who have limited
resources to evaluate the quality of early childhood education
programs increases the inequalities in children’s readiness for
school and potential secondary school outcomes.
Chapter one presented the background for this study, specified
the problem, described the significance of that problem,
established the purpose, clarified the research questions,
described the theoretical framework, and stated some of the
limitations contained within the study. Chapter two will review
the related literature. Chapter two includes the sociocultural
theory behind the need for diversified classrooms as well as the
need and benefits of quality early childhood education
programs. The second chapter also reflects on current early
childhood education program policy and funding requirements
for children in South Carolina and assessment structures in
place to be able to evaluate program effectiveness. Chapter
three presents a description of the research design, the research
methodology utilized, the subject selection, the statistical tests
used, and the instrumentation used in this study. The results of
the investigation outlined in chapter three are presented in
chapter four. Chapter four provides a detailed statistical
analysis of the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment data and the
presentation of results linked to the research questions. A
summary of the research, interpretation of findings, and the
research limitations are discussed in chapter five. Chapter five

also discusses the implications for further investigation. This
research study offers parents, district school leaders, and state
policymakers insight on the importance of four-year-old pre-
kindergarten programs. As well as identifying which programs
produce quality academic achievement and kindergarten
readiness to ensure future enrollment and funding decisions are
made based on all students having access to high-quality early
childhood education programs.
References
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2001). Head
Start program
performance measures: Third progress report. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2003). Head
Start FACES 2000:A
whole child perspective on program performance fourth
progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 46.
Alakeson, A. (2004). A 2020 vision for early years: Extending
choice; improving life
chances. London: The Social Market Foundation.
Allen, M. J., Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement
theory. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Ansari, A., Pianta, R. C., Whittaker, J. V., Vitiello, V. E., &
Ruzek, E. A. (2019). Starting
early: The benefits of attending early childhood education
programs at age 3. American Educational Research Journal, 51,
403-434. doi:10.3102/0002831218817737
Bainbridge, J., Meyers, M. K., Tanaka, S., & Waldfogel, J.
(2005). Who gets an early
education? Family income and the enrollment of three- to five-
year-olds from 1968 to 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3),
724-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00326.x

Biddle, N., Crawford, H., & Seth-Purdie, R. (2017). Risk
burden, participation in early
childhood education and care, and child outcomes. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 49-59.
Bowne, J. B., Magnuson, K. A., Schindler, H.S., Duncan, G. J.,
& Yoshikawa, H. (2017).
A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood
education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with
greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional
outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3),
407-428. DOI:10:3102/0162373716689489
Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L.
(2010). Improving classroom
quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4rs
program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 153-167.
DOI:10.1037/a0018160
Click, C., & Hinshaw, D. (2014, November 14). SC Supreme
Court finds for poor
districts in 20-year-old school equity suit. The State, pp. 1A,
2A.
Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D.,
Howes, C., … Pianta, R.
(2005). What is pre-kindergarten? Characteristics of public pre-
kindergarten programs. Applied Developmental Science, 9(3),
126-143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_1
Coley, R. L., Lombardi, C. M., Sims, J., & Votruba-Drzal, E.
(2013). Early education and
care experiences and cognitive skills development: A
comparative perspective between Australian and American
children. Family Matters, 93, 36-49. Retrieved from
https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=768724417777514;re
s=IELHSS
Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal
of Economic Perspectives
15(2), 213-238. Retrieved from
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.2.213

Education Commission of the States. (2019). Trends in pre-k
education funding in 2017-
2018. Denver, CO: Parker, E., Keily, T., Atchison, B., &
Mullen, J.
Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-constructivism to
socio-cultural theory and
practice: An expansive analysis of teachers’ professional
learning in early childhood education. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 5(1), 83-106. DOI:
10.1177/1476718X07072155
Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. P. (1987).
Adolescent mothers in later
life. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752810
Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society,
experience, and inquiry in
educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030004003
Helburn, S., & Howes, C. (1996). Child care cost and quality.
The Future of Children,
6(2), 62-82. DOI:10.2307/1602419
Hustedt, J. T., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). Private providers in
state pre-k: Vital partners.
Young Children, 66(6), 42-48.
Johnson, J. J., Gallagher, R. J., Montagne, M. J., Jordan, J. B.,
Gallagher, J. J., Hutiner, P.
L., & Karnes, M. B. (Eds.) (1994). Meeting early intervention
challenges: Issue from birth to three (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches
to learning and
development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational
Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Holbrook_Mahn/publicatio
n/233858618_Sociocultural_Approaches_to_Learning_and_Dev
elopment-

A_Vygotskian_Framework/links/0fcfd50c3d30ccc22e000000.pd
f
Lascarides, V., & Hinitz, B. (2000). History of early childhood
education. New York,
NY: Routledge.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C.,
Burchinal, M., Bryant, D.,
… Barbarin, O. (2007). Observed classroom quality programs
and associations with teacher, program, and classroom
characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 3-17.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.05.001
Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does
prekindergarten improve school
preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review,
26, 33-51. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.09.008
Marcon, R. A. (2002) Moving up the grades: Relationship
between preschool model and
later school success. Early Childhood Research and Practice,
5(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/marcon.html
Maryland State Department of Education. (2019). Ready for
kindergarten: Maryland’s
Early Childhood Comprehensive Assessment System. Baltimore,
MD: Author. Retrieved from
https://earlychildhood.marylandpublicschools.org/system/files/f
iledepot/4/kra_2018-19_technical_report.pdf
McMillan, J. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for
the consumer. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Moss, P. (2008). What future for the relationship between early
childhood education and
care and compulsory schooling? Research in Comparative and
International Education, 3(3), 224-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2008.3.3.224
Moss, P., & Haydon, G. (2008). Every child matters and the
concept of education.
London: Institute of Education University of London.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2000). Map and track
2000: State initiatives for
young children and families. New York: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition
of education 2019.
Washington, DC: Author.
Ohio Department of Education. (2019). State Kindergarten
Readiness Assessment (KRA)
data 2018-2019 [Data file]. Retrieved
fromhttps://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/download
Peizener-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M.,
Culkin, M. L., Howes, C.,
Kagan, S. L., … Rustici, J. (1999). The children of the cost,
quality, and outcomes study go to school: Public report. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child
Development Center.
Pelatti, C. Y., Dynia, J. M., Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L. M., &
Kaderavek, J. (2016).
Examining quality in two preschool settings: Publicly funded
early childhood education and inclusive early childhood
education classrooms. Child Youth Care Forum, 45, 829-849.
DOI:10.1007/s10566-016-9359-9
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R.,
Early, D., & Barbarin, O.
(2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and
teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-
teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3),
144-159. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2
Ready at Five. (2019). Readiness matters 2019 [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from
https://www.readyatfive.org/school-readiness-data/readiness-
matters-2019/1655-readinessmatters-2019-powerpoint.html
Reid, J., & Ready, D. (2013). High-quality preschool: The
socioeconomic composition of
preschool classrooms and children’s learning. Early Education
and Development. 24, 1082-1111. DOI:

10.1080/10409289.2012.757519
Reynolds, A. J., Mann, E., Miedel, W., & Smokowski, P.
(1997). The state of early
childhood intervention: Effectiveness, myths and realities, new
directions. Focus 19(1). University of Wisconsin-Madison:
Institute for Research and Poverty.
Schechter, C., & Bye, B. (2007). Preliminary evidence for the
impact of mixed-income
preschools on low-income children’s language growth. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 137-146. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.005
Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to
neighborhoods: The science
of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2018a). CERDEP
guidelines.
Columbia, SC: Author.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2018b). School
headcount by gender and
ethnicity d45_2018_19 [Data File]. Retrieved from
https://ed.sc.gov/data/other/student-counts/active-student-
headcounts/
South Carolina Department of Education. (2018c). School
headcount by grade
d45_2018_19 [Data File]. Retrieved from
https://ed.sc.gov/data/other/student-counts/active-student-
headcounts/
South Carolina Department of Education. (2019). Precode
manual (DRAC No. SCDE-
08-0005). Columbia, SC: Office of Assessment.
South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. (2019).
Analysis of Kindergarten
Readiness Assessment (KRA) results: School year 2018-2019.
Columbia, SC: Author.
Spatz, C. (2019). Exploring statistics: Tales of distributions.

Conway, AR: Outcrop
Publishers.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). A matter of equity:
Preschool in America.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA). Retrieved
October 12, 2019, from https://www.ed.gov/essa
Vasagar, J. (2012, June 27). Michael Gove’s Masai inspiration.
[blog post]. Retrieved
from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2012/jun/2
7/michaelgove-kenya
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher
psychological processes.
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souherman, Eds.
and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/events/archive/aligningcolla
borativelearning/Vygotsky.pdf
WestEd Standards Assessment and Accountability Services.
(2014). Ready for
kindergarten: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment technical
report fall 2014. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/tests -
files/pre-k-and-kindergarten-readiness-assessments/kra-
technical-report-2014/
WestEd Standards Assessment and Accountability Services.
(2019). Kindergarten
Readiness Assessment South Carolina: Technical report 2018-
2019. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/tests-files/pre-k-
and-kindergarten-readiness-assessments/kra-sc-technical-report-
2018-19/
Wood, E. (2007). Reconceptualising child-centred education:
Contemporary directions in
policy, theory, and practice in early childhood. FORUM
49(1&2), 119-134. http://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2007.49.1.119

Appendix A
IRB Approval Letter
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment 2

Course Name: Intro to International Business
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT-321
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: II
CRN:
Academic Year: 1441/1442 H
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade: Marks Obtained/Out of
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
· The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD
format only) via allocated folder.
· Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
· Students are advised to make their work clear and well
presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This
includes filling your information on the cover page.
· Students must mention question number clearly in their
answer.
· Late submission will NOT be accepted.
· Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words,
copying from students or other resources without proper
referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
· All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12,
double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be
accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
· Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Assignment Regulation:
· All students are encouraged to use their own word.
· Assignment -2 should be submitted on or before the end of
Week-09 in Black Board only.

· This assignment is an individual assignment.
Learning Outcomes:
· Analyze the effects of culture, politics and economic systems
in the context of international business (Lo 2.1)
· Identify the major components of international business
management (Lo 2.4)
· Carry out effective self-evaluation through discussing
economic systems in the international business context (Lo. 3.1)
Critical Thinking
Please read Case 2: “Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and
Beyond” available in your e-book (page no.611), and answer the
following questions:
Assignment Question(s):
Under Chávez’s leadership, what kind of economic system was
put in place in Venezuela? How would you characterize the
political system? (word limit: 100)
1. During the Chávez years, many foreign multinationals exited
Venezuela or reduced their exposure there. What do you think
the impact of this has been on Venezuela? What needs to be
done to reverse the trend? (word limit:
100)
2. By 2016, Venezuela’s economy appeared to be on the brink
of total collapse. What do you think needs to be done to reverse
this? (word limit: 150))
Answer:
1.

DSRT 837 Mock Dissertation Chapter One RubricName ___________

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DSRT 837 Mock Dissertation Chapter One RubricName ___________

Similar to DSRT 837 Mock Dissertation Chapter One RubricName ___________ (18)

More from AlyciaGold776

More from AlyciaGold776 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DSRT 837 Mock Dissertation Chapter One RubricName ___________