• Head Start Standards Of Learning

IntroductionEarly Head Start (EHS) is a federal, two-generation program to enhance children’s development and families’ functioning. It serves low-income pregnant women and families with infants from birth to age 3 in the United States. EHS began in 1995 and in 2010, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 allocated $1.1 billion (U.S.) for it, allowing the program to add 50,000 enrollment slots in fiscal year 2009-2010. 1 In 2014, Congress appropriated a half a billion dollars to expand EHS slots through Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CCP) grants.

Isa 2006 keygen. Read story Isa Server 2006 Serial Keygen by crepralosca with 0 reads. Isa Server 2006 Serial Keygen 10 Mar 2006. I am planning to write an article.

By 2017, funded EHS slots increased to more than 150,000. 2 Even so, EHS serves less than 10 percent of eligible children. 2Programs are charged with providing high quality, comprehensive, developmentally enriching services to children and services to parents that support them in their role as primary caregivers and encourage self sufficiency. These comprehensive services include core early education and child development, health, oral health, mental health, nutrition, family support, and family and community engagement services (per the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards 3).

Programs help ensure that families receive needed services by acting as a bridge to the community to link families to services. Service integration is built into the model because of its two-generation focus and emphasis on providing comprehensive services. Programs must work to establish ongoing collaborative relationships with community organizations to promote access to services. 3SubjectIt is expected that families need supports beyond the child and family development services provided through home visits and center-based care, and no single program will likely meet all needs.

To create comprehensive integrated services, the performance standards require programs to facilitate communication and cooperation among community providers and document their own efforts to establish partnerships. 3 These partnerships are meant to promote service integration, coordination and seamless access to services.Problems/IssuesPrograms face a number of challenges in providing comprehensive integrated services.

Making the services available is necessary but not sufficient; there may be a need to follow up to ensure appointments are kept or to provide other supports (such as transportation). Providing specialized services may be challenging if there are few such providers in the community. Further, programs that partner with community child care providers must ensure that partners also meet Early Head Start quality standards. Another challenge to service provision is the prevalence of non-English/non-Spanish languages in many programs, which can make it difficult to provide services in the languages families speak. Moreover, current immigration policy, presents challenges for some programs that serve immigrants. These programs must combat lack of trust that could prevent families from taking up needed services.When children reach 2½ years of age, programs plan for their transition from EHS. Transition planning fosters service integration by identifying appropriate placements, then establishing lines of communication, sharing records and communicating the progress and needs of the child and family to the new provider.

Ideally, other services also continue after transitions, again depending on service availability and families’ continued eligibility (they must re-qualify financially for Head Start, which can be a barrier to entry).Research ContextEHS has been studied extensively, in terms of its effects on children and families and its implementation. The early work of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP) showed that children and families in the 17 original research programs benefitted from EHS in numerous domains and that benefits in some domains (for example, children’s social-emotional development), found at age 2 extended to ages 3 and 5, two years after program eligibility ended.

4,5,6 Implementation studies of the early program showed progress in establishing community partnerships that increased the availability of services for families. Accordingly, impacts were stronger impacts for programs that were fully implemented early in the study. 5,7The Survey of Early Head Start Programs (SEHSP) 8 conducted a national survey of program directors to examine program organization (including use of partnerships).

More recently, a study of a nationally representative sample of EHS programs, the Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES 2009), a included a census of nearly 1,000 children in two birthday windows (prenatal/newborns or about 1 year old) and followed children and families until age 3 or until they left the program. The study collected information on partnerships, documented service receipt and referrals, tracked program exit, and assessed program quality and parent involvement. 9,10 As part of Baby FACES 2009, the provision and receipt of core child development services in home-based or center-based options were tracked on a weekly basis by program staff. Currently, another national descriptive study of EHS (Baby FACES 2018) is underway to extend the lessons learned from Baby FACES 2009. It focuses on the processes in EHS programs (classrooms in particular) that support infant/toddler growth and development in the context of nurturing, responsive relationships.a Also underway is the study of Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CCP) that will document the characteristics and features of EHS-CCP partnerships and activities. BKey Research QuestionsWe know much about the services that programs offer and families actually receive but less about how EHS programs engage with community partners to provide services and how programs integrate services.

Head Start Standards Of Learning

Understanding how partnerships work in practice and the barriers to full collaboration could spark similar work to help programs become more effective partners and leaders. Also less clear is how programs support responsive relationships between: teachers and children, teachers/home visitors and parents, and parents and children to affect child and family outcomes.