The Study

Patricia Edwards, professor in the Department of Teacher Education, along with doctoral students Jennifer Danridge and Heather Pleasants examine how teachers and administrators within Head Start and elementary classrooms define at-riskness, and explore how these definitions impact the way that these school professionals attempt to intervene to positively affect the lives of students.

The Findings

Edwards and the doctoral students conducted the study at Baker School, an urban Midwestern elementary school that serves about 320 students. More than half of the students are racial or ethnic minorities, and 90 percent of the enrolled students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. At the school, the Head Start program was in the basement, and elementary classrooms were located “upstairs.”  “Initially, we thought that this school afforded a wonderful opportunity for Head Start and elementary school teachers to share pertinent information about practices and strategies that proved effective for at risk students,” the researchers wrote. “However, we soon discovered that although the Head Start program and the elementary school program resided in the same school, they operated as two completely different educational institutions.”  In fact, Edwards quickly found that there were no formal or informal structures that fostered communications between the Head Start and elementary school professional, despite the fact that they worked with the same group of at-risk children and families. One of most salient reasons for the seemingly disconnected relationship, the researchers found, was “the elementary school’s embarrassment in acknowledging that it needed a Head Start program.” Some elementary schools view Head Start as socioeducational stigma because they serve “at-risk children and families, a population that some schools are all too willing to forget.”  Although Edwards and her students found some congruence in the folk theories about at-riskness between the Head Start and elementary school professionals, the difference was stark. In terms of instruction of at-risk students, for instance, the Head Start teachers were willing to meet learners at their own levels by providing appropriate scaffolding and nurturing.  However, some “upstairs teachers” expected children and their families to continue “the climb towards academic success with little or no support from them.” In the end, Edwards calls on elementary school teachers and administrators to engage Head Start professionals in conversations in an effort to (1) find out what strategies are already working for at-risk children and continue them; (2) facilitate open communication between Head Start and elementary school administration; (3) foster sensitivity toward at-risk students and their families; and (4) involve the school district.

What It Means To You

As the study finds, educators can view having a Head Start program in their school as a stigma that can thwart communication to the detriment of at-risk students. How do teachers or administrators in your district view Head Start programs? Are there formal avenues of communication between your elementary school teachers and Head Start teachers?

For More Information

Edwards, P.A., Danridge, J.C. & Pleasants, H.M. (1999). “Are we all on the same page?: Exploring administrators’ and teachers’ conceptions of ‘at-riskness’ in an urban elementary school.” In Shanahan, T. & Brown, F. R. (eds.), 48^th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 329-339.

< back to 2001 ed-research reports