PreK–3 Alignment in California's Education System

Over the past several years, there has been much attention and advocacy around “PreK–3 Alignment,” both in California and nationwide. The push for alignment comes in the face of a growing body of research documenting the benefits of attending high-quality preschool (see Barnett, 2011; Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, & Mashburn, 2010; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008), along with concerns about the fading of the benefits of preschool by third grade that has been found in many studies (see Kauerz, 2006; see also Lee & Loeb, 1995; Magnuson, Ruhm et al., 2007).

Supporters of preK–3 alignment note that child development is a continuous process, and that skills developed in one grade must be built upon and reinforced in later grades. Furthermore, in order to sustain gains made in one grade, high-quality education must be provided through subsequent grades (PreK Coalition, 2011; see also Magnuson et al., 2007).

A further claim by preK–3 alignment supporters is that in addition to quality counting at every grade, alignment across grades in such elements as standards, assessments, curricula, and instructional strategies enhances children’s learning and development and helps sustain the gains made in preschool (Kauerz, 2006; Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Graves, 2006).

Assertions about the value of preK–3 alignment across grades are supported by evidence that programs providing continuity in services and supports from preschool through the early elementary grades have produced particularly impressive long-term effects in child outcomes (see Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2006).