The Dialog Vol28Iss01 for separating.pdf The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 21 Transition to Kindergarten for Preschoolers with Multilingual Abilities: Do Parents and Professionals See Eye to Eye? The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 2025, Volume 28, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.55370/thedialog.v28i1.1789 Contact: Marisa Macy mmacy2@uwyo.edu Copyright © 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). TRANSITION ABSTRACT Many traditional assessment approaches lack specific strategies for supporting preschoolers who are multi- lingual learners during their transition to kindergar- ten. Our mixed method study sought to understand parental and professional assessment collaboration during transition to kindergarten for preschoolers who are learning multiple languages. Specifically, we examined the congruency between teachers and families of children who speak Spanish at home who are enrolled in rural Head Start preschool and tran- sitioning into kindergarten. Overall, parents and professionals had similar views on child development for adaptive, cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, liter- acy, and social emotional domains. However, there were meaningful discrepancies between parent and teacher ratings for math and social communication domains. Results of this reliability study have implica- tions for creating positive and supportive transitions for preschoolers using an authentic and collaborative assessment approach with prioritizing individualized strategies for children, their families, and profession- als during the move to kindergarten. KEYWORDS Authentic assessment, multilingual, Head Start, kindergarten, rural Children who speak multiple languages may have special needs during transitions from preschool to kindergarten. Assessment could be one of the needs they have that requires thoughtful consideration. Gathering information to understand each child’s abilities and determining what is necessary from their early childhood education program for children to thrive are some of the purposes of assessment for tran- sition to kindergarten (Bagnato et al., 2024; D’Am- ico et al., 2024; Zyskind & Macy, 2024). Traditional assessments can be problematic because they can lack specific attention for supporting the child, their family, and professional(s) during educational and Marisa Macy University of Wyoming Ehichoya Edokhamhen Tennessee State University Kelcie Burke University of Nebraska The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 22 environmental transitions (Beasley et al., 2023; Da- ley et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2013; Nakajima et al., 2019; Sheridan et al., 2020). There is added complexity for children who are multilingual and their families to access linguisti- cally valid assessment services (Carotta et al., 2023; Macy et al., 2019b; Smith & Clegg, 2021). For ex- ample, rural areas may not have as many services compared to metropolitan areas that have more density in population and services. There could also be a lack of assessment practices that foster collaboration between professionals and families. Young children from rural areas, and their fam- ilies, whose home language is not English might have distinct needs from the assessment system (Carotta et al., 2023; Smith & Clegg, 2021; Teleki & Buck-Gomez, 2002). This transitional period is an important time for children and parents when they are particular- ly vulnerable to the limitations of the assessment system (Early et al., 2001; Ramey & Ramey, 2004). Careful planning can help a child and their family transition from preschool to kindergarten, howev- er challenges exist (Bassok et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2015; La Paro et al., 2000; Miller & Goldsmith, 2017; Sands et al., 2024). Transition practices may lack individualization for children and their fami- lies (Bassok & Latham, 2017; Cook, & Coley, 2017; Sands et al., 2024; Shaul & Schwartz, 2014). Many transition practices focus on groups rather than individuals (Macy et al., 2022). Another problem with some transition practices is that they are not started early enough to make a difference (Curby et al., 2015; Denham et al., 2014; Pianta, Cox, & Snow, 2007). There is frequently a lack of collaborative tran- sition services where the family and professionals are working together as a team. Oftentimes assess- ment is fragmented and not connected to other parts of a service delivery system. For example, a professional team conducts traditional assessments, however, the assessment results may not be used to create developmental and/or academic goals for children, inform the curriculum, and/or used for instruction (Macy et al., 2005). Authentic assess- ment should have treatment validity and lead to instruction or interventions (Bagnato et al., 2011; Snyder et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2022) Authentic assessment involves the practice of assessing children under naturalistic conditions and settings, like with their familiar caregivers and their peers (Bagnato & Macy, 2010, forthcoming; de Sam Lazaro, 2017; Washington-Nortey et al., 2022). An assessment that is authentic happens in places that are familiar to the child and doing the things they would typically do (e.g., play, routines, etc.). Parents and teachers support children when they collaborate during the authentic assessment process (Bagnato & Macy, forthcoming; Crane et al., 2011; Harvey & Wennerstrom, 2023). Profes- sional organizations in early childhood education have determined that inclusive practices provide children with the right to: (a) access, (b) partici- pation, and (c) supports (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). Au- thentic assessment can support all three of these organizing principles for inclusion of children and their families in preschool and kindergarten. While lots of professionals would agree that authentic as- sessment is a favorable way to collect meaningful information about children’s growth and learning, conventional testing is still the typical process for assessing children (Bagnato et al., 2024; Bagnato & Macy, in press ). The current study examined an authentic as- sessment process that incorporated input from both parents and professionals who were working together for the transition of children, who are multilingual, from rural Head Start program to kindergarten. Head Start is a preschool program in the United States that started in the 1960s and serves children and their families who are eligible based on an economic need, and/or the child has a delay/disability (Zigler & Styfco,1993, 2000). A component of Head Start programs, assessment is typically initiated by teachers and staff that may also include parents in the process. Head Start has a comprehensive curriculum that focuses on the aca- demic and developmental outcomes of the child, as well as a strong family component (Zigler & Styf- co,1993, 2000). Our primary research question was: What is the agreement between professionals and parents on children’s skills across 8 domains (math, literacy, adaptive, cognitive, fine motor, gross mo- tor, social emotional, and social communication) when the home language of preschoolers is Span- ish? TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 23 Method To address the research question, we chose to use a mixed method design with both quantitative and qualitative features. The reason we chose this design had to do with capturing observations from parents and professionals with both numbers and words from their comments about children’s skills. Our study incorporated correlations between par- ent and professional ratings of child development across 8 areas/domains. We designed the study to explore parent and professional assessment of pre- schoolers who are Spanish speakers in rural Head Start programs who were in the process of transi- tioning to kindergarten settings. The current study was part of a bigger study that took place in the spring of 2022 with the first cohort of children, parents, and teachers (Macy, Reid, & Macy, 2023), and then the second cohort of children and adults in the spring of 2023. The current study examined children who were mul- tilingual from both cohorts (2022 and 2023). Our study took place in a rural and midwestern area of the United States. There are about 27% (approxi- mately 529,000) of the population in this state who are from rural communities (U.S. Census, 2020). Participants, procedures, instruments, and data analysis are discussed next. Participants The participants in this study were comprised of nine Head Start teachers and nine parents of pre- schoolers who spoke Spanish at home. Teachers in this study work in rural Head Start settings. Fami- lies had a preschool student at the time of the study (i.e., spring 2022 and spring 2023) that would be transitioning to kindergarten in the fall of the same year. Teachers. A demographic form was complet- ed by the teachers in this study. All participants identified as female and worked in rural Head Start programs. Teachers averaged approximately 16.9 years working with young children and their fam- ilies (range was 1 to 30 years). Teacher experience with Head Start averaged 8.7 years (range was 0 to 24 years with Head Start). Of the teachers included in this study, their level of education included 5 teachers holding a bachelor’s degree, 2 teachers holding an associate degree, and 2 teachers having some college or CDA. The teachers majored in the following areas: Ele- mentary Education, Early Childhood Education, Family Studies, Organizational Communication, Criminal Justice and Family Studies, and Graphic Design. Both teachers with degrees in Elementary Education had a minor or endorsement in Early Childhood Education. Of the nine teachers, seven indicated that most of their coursework or train- ing was related to working with preschool. The remaining two teachers indicated that half of their coursework or training was related to working in preschool settings. Selected demographic data for teacher participants are reported in Table 1. Family and children. A total of 9 families were identified from the past two year’s group of partic- ipants that spoke Spanish at home that were en- rolled in a rural Head Start program. All the parent participants identified as female (n = 9), and family participants were mothers and/or grandmothers of the preschoolers in the study. The reported family income for families ranged from below $10,000 to $50,000-$100,000 with over half of the families be- ing in the below $10,000 to $10,000-$50,000 range or declining to answer. This study focused on preschool children in ru- ral Head Start settings that speak Spanish at home. Children ranged in age from 55 to 68 months, and the average age was 62.7 months old. Most of the children in this study did not have a history or diagnosis of a developmental delay (n = 77.8%). However, two of the children in this study had a history or diagnosis of a developmental delay or disability (n = 22.2%). This percentage of children (i.e., 22%) that fit the criteria to be included in this study is well over the requirement that at least 10% of placements for children who are eligible due to a disability in Head Start programs. The two children that were identified as having a delay or disability did receive special services. Written materials for this study were available in both Spanish and English. The home language of children was Spanish, and there was 66.7% of the families who spoke solely Spanish and there were 33.3% of the families who spoke both English and Spanish at home. The materials (i.e., consent form and demographic form) were translated into Span- ish by the Head Start program. The assessment ma- terials we used in this study with families was pub- TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 24 TRANSITION TABLE 1 Overall Agreement (mean) Between Parents and Professionals Ratings for the 9 Spanish Speaking Children Factor Year 1 n=7 Y1 % Year 2 n=2 Y2 % Ethnicity African American - - - - - - - - Caucasian (Non-Hispanic) 7 100 2 100 Latino or Hispanic - - - - - - - - Other - - - - Age 20-30 - - - - 30-40 3 42.9 1 50 40-50 2 28.6 1 50 Over 50 2 28.6 - - - - - - - - - - 2 29 - - 1 14 1 50 4 57 1 50 - - - - - - - - 1 14 - - High 2 29 2 100 Very high 4 57 - - - - - - -lished into Spanish by the publisher of the assessment. The ethnicity composition for the students in this study was 88.9% Latino and 11.1% both Caucasian and Latino. Table 2 shows the demographic data for the children and their families. The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 25 TABLE 2 Children and their Family Demographics Factor Year 1 n=5 Y1 % Year 2 n=4 Y2 % Ethnicity (children) African American - - - - - - - - Caucasian (Non-Hispanic) - - - - Latino or Hispanic 4 80 4 100 - - - - More than 1 1 20 - - - - - - Gender 1 20 3 75 4 80 1 25 Developmental Status - 3 60 4 100 - - - - 2 40 - - - - - - Receives special services Yes 2 40 - - No 3 60 4 100 - - - - Therapy - - - Family Income 2 40 - - 2 40 1 25 - - 1 25 1 20 2 50 TRANSITION Procedures Recruitment. Approval of this study was granted by the University Institutional Review Board. The researchers contacted directors/princi- pals of Head Start to invite them to participate in the study. The study purpose and procedures were explained, and permission was requested to recruit from their program classrooms. Teachers that were interested in participating were contacted by the researchers and those that were eligible (i.e., have preschool-age children who were scheduled to en- ter kindergarten next year in their classes) were given a consent form to review and sign. Research- ers provided teachers with consent forms to be sent home to parents of eligible children. Parents that agreed to participate, signed the letter of informed consent, and returned it to the researchers. Teach- ers were recruited through the community action network for Head Start in a rural community in the Midwestern part of the United States. Parents were recruited from the Head Start teachers that sent let- ters home to families about the study. Participation was voluntary for all participants (i.e., teachers and parents/grandparents). Training. Teachers participated in a 2-hour The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 26 training on the use of the AESP-3 Ready-Set and parental use of the AESP-3 Family Assessment of Child Skills (FACS). Training was focused on teach- ers; however parents/grandparents did not receive the 2-hour training. Training consisted of presenta- tion of assessment content, case study discussions, and role play. A $25 gift card was given to the Head Start program teachers that participated in the training. Data collection. This study utilized an au- thentic and curriculum-based assessment called the Assessment, Evaluation, & Programming Sys- tem (AEPS-3; Bricker et al., 2022). Teachers were provided with a hard copy and digital copy of all the materials of the AEPS-3 Ready Set protocol for completing the assessment, and a parent packet that included the AEPS-3 FACS protocol and de- mographic form for families. Teachers complet- ed the AEPS-3 Ready Set and collected the parent packet from families. All protocols and packets were picked up from the Head Start office by the researcher(s). Teachers received a $20 gift card for each AEPS-3 Ready Set protocol they completed. Parents received a $15 gift card for each AEPS-3 FACS completed. Assessment Tools/Instruments The AEPS is an evidence-based measure (Grisham et al., 2021; Macy et al., 2015) and is currently in its third edition. AEPS started in the 1970s and several studies have been done on the AEPS that the reader can review summary at Macy, Chen, and Macy (2019). The AEPS measures child development via natural observations in familiar settings across eight areas including: adaptive, cog- nitive, fine motor, gross motor, social, social com- munication, math (new in the third edition), and literacy (new in the third edition). The AEPS uses graduated scoring where a three-point rating scale contains 2, 1, and 0 ratings. These scores translate into 2 representing a mastery of that skill, a 1 indicating an emerging skill, and a 0 means that the skill has not yet emerged. AEPS can be used as an initial assessment, and/or can be an evaluation over time. The third edition of the AEPS has two components that were examined in this study to include: AEPS-3 Ready Set and the AEPS-3 Family Assessment of Child Skills (FACS) that are described next. AEPS-3 Ready Set. One of the new com- ponents in the third edition includes the AEPS- 3 Ready Set tool that was used in this study. The Ready Set focuses on assessing kindergarten readi- ness skill of preschoolers who have a developmen- tal age of four to six years. This teacher-completed assessment tool is comprised of 40 items that have been extracted from the AEPS-3 in the following areas: two items in fine motor (5%), three items in gross motor (8%), two items in adaptive (5%), eight items in social emotional (20%), three items in so- cial communication (7%), six items in cognitive (15%), ten items in literacy (25%), and six items in math (15%). The areas of social emotional, cogni- tive, literacy and math have more items and make up 75% of the Ready Set tool because they address many of the skills that children will encounter in kindergarten. These items were selected and reviewed by a panel of experts who specialize in child develop- ment and early childhood assessments, based on the readiness skills children should possess when entering kindergarten. The AEPS-3 Ready Set uses a graduated scoring system to show where children are at in mastering a skill (i.e., skill is mastered gets a 2, skill that is emerging gets a 1, and a skill that has not yet started gets a 0). An emerging skill (i.e., score of 1) can be further explained by using an “A” or “I” that stand for assistance or incomplete, respectively. At the end of the assessment the raw score is totaled and converted into a percentage by dividing the raw score by 40 to show a child’s progress in kindergarten readiness across the eight domains. AEPS-3 FACS. The other component added to the third edition of the AEPS is the Family Assess- ment of Child Skills (FACS) of Ready Set. If filled out by a family member, parent, or guardian of the child, the AEPS-3 FACS allows them to provide input for the assessment of their child’s skills. The AEPS-3 FACS includes a demographic form that obtains basic information (i.e., name and address, contact information, language is spoken at home) from the family. There is a page that explains the purpose of the AEPS-3 FACS and provides instruc- tions for scoring. The AEPS-3 FACS items measure TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 27 a child’s skills, and there is a section for recording family concerns and priorities for instruction/in- tervention. Families and professionals may use the AEPS-3 FACS to identify skills and needs of children, set goals, and monitor progress. The AEPS-3 FACS has 30 items that correspond to the items on the AEPS- 3 Ready Set. The items on the AEPS-3 FACS are written in family friendly language as compared to the technical language on the AEPS-3 Ready Set that is meant for teachers. For example, on the Ready Set one of the items in the social emotional domain is written “segments CVC words into in- dividual sounds,” whereas the corresponding item on the AEPS-3 FACS is written “Does your child break words into its individual sounds? For exam- ple, your child says ‘c-a-t’ when you ask what all the sounds are in cat.” In the AEPS-3 FACS, each area begins with a brief definition of the domain, followed by the items. Some items contain an illustration to ac- company the skill. A 3-point rating scale is used for each item (Yes, Sometimes, and Not Yet) that a family member scores based on their observations of the child. If they are not able to observe the skill that they are assessing, they can select “Cannot Ob- serve.” The AEPS-3 Ready Set assessment and AEPS-3 FACS can be used together or separately. For ex- ample, AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS can be used together to facilitate parent teacher con- ferences where each person completes their assess- ment of the child’s skills and then meets to discuss the child’s abilities and possible areas of need/sup- ports. AEPS-3 FACS has an open-ended section af- ter each area/domain that asks parents what they would like their child to learn. At the end of the AEPS-3 FACS there is a section after all domains have been completed labeled “intervention priori- ties” where the family member can list what skills they would like their child to learn overall. These are reported in the results section. Demographic information forms. Teacher and parent participants completed separate de- mographic forms. Teachers provided information about gender and age, years of experience, edu- cational attainment, coursework, and assessment skill level. Families were asked to share information about their child’s gender, ethnicity/race, develop- mental status, special services received, as well as family income and marital status. All participants could skip any questions they were uncomfortable answering. Data Analysis The three instruments used in this study were the AEPS-3 Ready Set, AEPS-3 FACS, and demo- graphic information forms. Two independent ob- servations were completed (i.e. families and pro- fessionals) to assess a child’s skill level across eight areas/domains (i.e. adaptive, cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, social emotional, social communica- tion, reading, and math). Inter-rater reliability be- tween professionals and families was measured by examining the development of the nine children in this study with Spanish as their home language. Agreements across average raw score and develop- mental areas/domains were calculated using Pear- son’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. Results Parents of children who speak Spanish and their Head Start teachers observed 9 children using two versions of the AEPS-3: (a) Ready Set, and (b) FACS. Reported results are presented for the dyads showing their assessments. Next, we will share cor- relations and overall agreement between parents of Spanish speaking children and their teachers, and then by domains. (Figure 1). TRANSITION FIGURE 1 Overall Agreement (mean) Between Parents and Professionals Ratings for the 9 Spanish The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 28 Basic Agreements Between Parents and Profes- sionals by Domains Here are data (Figure 2) reported for children’s development by domains when both parents and professionals rated children’s skills. The biggest dis- crepancy (56.5% difference) seen between parents and teachers across all eight domains was in math. Parents were rating their children significantly higher than teachers. This domain discrepancy was distantly followed by the social communication do- main in which teachers were scoring children high- er than parents (16.75% difference). Next, children’s skills rated by both parents and professionals are reported for the following 8 do- mains: adaptive, cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, social emotional, social communication, literacy, and math. Adaptive. Means for items from the adap- tive areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were 1.78 and 1.72 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a strong positive, statistically significant correlation between adaptive items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set (teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (parents), r = 0.81, p = 0.008. This suggests that as scores increased for one AEPS-3 measure, they also increased for the other measure. See Table 3. TRANSITION FIGURE 2 Mean Scores of Teachers and Parents’ Agreement on 8 Child Developmental Variables M SD 1 2 1. AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) 1.78 .36 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.72 .51 .81 --- TABLE 3 Adaptive Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 29 Cognitive. Means for items from the cognitive areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were 1.31 and 1.51 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a weak positive, statistically insignificant correlation between cognitive items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents, r = 0.10, p = 0.794. This suggests that there is not enough evidence to conclude that scores on one AEPS-3 measure increase as scores on the other measure increase. M SD 1 2 1.31 .30 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.51 .49 .10 --- Fine motor. Means for items from the fine motor areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were 1.83 and 1.94 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a weak negative, statistically insignificant correlation between fine motor items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents, r = -0.25, p = 0.516. This suggests that there is not enough evidence to conclude that as scores increase for one AEPS-3 measure, they decrease for the other measure. M SD 1 2 1.83 .25 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.94 .17 -.25 --- Gross motor. Means for items from the gross motor areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were both 1.89 (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a strong positive, statistically significant correlation between gross motor items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents r = 0.81, p = 0.008. This suggests that as scores increased for one AEPS-3 measure, they increased for the other measure. M SD 1 2 1.89 .24 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.89 .24 .81 --- Social emotional. Means for items from the social emotional areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were both 1.73 and 1.60 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a moderate positive, statistically insignificant correlation between social emotional items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents r = 0.51, p = 0.159. This suggests that there is not enough evidence to conclude that scores on one AEPS-3 measure increase as scores on the other measure increase. TRANSITION TABLE 4 Cognitive Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) TABLE 5 Fine Motor Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) TABLE 6 Gross Motor Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 30 M SD 1 2 1.73 .23 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.60 .46 .51 --- Social communication. Means for items from the social communication areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were both 1.89 and 1.56 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a weak positive, statistically insignificant correlation between social communication items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents r = 0.28, p = 0.458. This suggests that there is not enough evidence to conclude that as scores increase for one AEPS-3 measure, they also increase for the other measure. M SD 1 2 1.89 .24 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.56 .46 .28 --- Literacy. Means for items from the literacy areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were both 0.94 and 1.03 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a weak positive, statistically insig- nificant correlation between literacy items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents r = 0.43, p = 0.244. This suggests that there is not enough evidence to suggest that scores on one AEPS-3 measure increase as scores on the other measure increase. M SD 1 2 .94 .49 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.03 .56 .43 --- Math. Means for items from the math areas of the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS were both 0.81 and 1.01 respectively (based on the AEPS-3 rating scale of 0-2.00). There was a moderate positive, statistically signif- icant correlation between math items on the AEPS-3 Ready Set and AEPS-3 FACS when scored by teachers and parents r = 0.67, p = 0.048. This suggests that as scores increased for one AEPS-3 measure, they also increased for the other measure. M SD 1 2 .81 .71 --- 2. AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) 1.01 .64 .67 --- TRANSITION TABLE 7 Social Emotional Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) TABLE 8 Social Communication Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) TABLE 9 Literacy Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) TABLE 10 Math Skills Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation for AEPS-3 Ready Set (Teachers) and AEPS-3 FACS (Parents) The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 31 Parental Responses to Open-ended Questions Parental wishes for their child matter. Tran- sition assessments can help teachers and parents create meaning from the results that might include: identify child strengths, identify needs of the child, design learning goals for the child, and more. The AEPS-3 FACS incorporates the opportunity for par- ents to provide information in each domain about what skills they want their child to learn. The final page of the FACS is called, Intervention Priorities. Here is where parents can give more information about overall skills they would like their child to develop. The qualitative responses from these open-ended prompts and parental hopes for their children are described next. Parental wishes for adaptive skills. The AEPS- 3 FACS defines this domain as, “Adaptive skills are those that involve being able to care for yourself. These skills include eating, drinking, preparing and serving food, using the toilet independently, dress- ing, and undressing./ Las habilidades adaptativas son aquellas que incluyen el poder cuidar de si mismo/a. Estas habilidades incluyen comer, beber, preparer y server alimentos, usar el baño de mane- ra independiente, vestirse y desvestirse” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 3). One of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended sec- tion of the adaptive skills domain. They wished to see their child, “be less social, she’s quite the little butterfly and loves to talk. It often concerns me when she is out with me how easy it is to talk to strangers even though we have had that talk.” Parental wishes for cognitive skills. The AEPS- 3 FACS defines this domain as, “Cognitive skills are those that involve the mental processes and reason- ing. These skills include imitating, recalling, cate- gorizing, problem solving, and making observa- tions and predictions. / Las habilidades cognitivas son aquellas que comprenden los procesos men- tales y el razonamiento. Estas habilidades incluyen el limitar, recorder, clasificar, resolver problemas y hacer observaciones y predicciones” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 6). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the cognitive skills domain. One parent indicated they wished for their child, “to do more experiments to help widen and expand her ideas and mind.” Another parent wrote that they wished their child would be able to “reconocer las letras del A, B, C y los numeros” (recognize the letters A, B, C and numbers). Parental wishes for fine motor skills. The AEPS-3 FACS defines this domain as, “Fine motor skills are those that involve the movement and use of the hands. These skills include grasping and re- leasing, using the index finger and thumb, using scissors and writing implements, drawing shapes, and printing letters. / Las habilidades de motrici- dad fina son aquellas que implican el movimiento y uso de las manos. Estas habilidades incluyen el agarrar y soltar, usar el dedo índice y el pulgar, usar las tijeras y herramientas de escritura, dibujar figu- ras y escribir letras” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 1). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the fine mo- tor skills domain. One parent responded that they wanted their child to, “write or draw with both hands.” Another parent wrote, “escribir los numer- os y letras” (write the numbers and letter). Parental wishes for gross motor skills. The AEPS-3 FACS defines this domain as, “Gross motor skills involve moving and getting around in your surroundings. These skills include rolling, crawling, walking, running, jumping, skipping, and riding a bike. / Las habilidades de la motricidad gruesa comprenden el poder moverse y desplazarse alre- dedor de todo aquello que nos rodeo. Estas habili- dades incluyen poder rodar/voltearse, gatear, cam- inar, corer, saltar, saltar en un solo pie y andar en bicicleta” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 2). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the gross motor skills domain. One parent wanted their child, “to learn to jump rope.” Another parent wished to see their child, “omolar en bicicleta” (ride on bicycle). Parental wishes for social emotional skills. The AEPS-3 FACS defines this domain as, “Social skills are those that involve interacting and partic- ipating with others. These skills include showing affection, playing with others, choosing activities, sharing, managing conflict, identifying emotions, and knowing personal information. TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 32 / Las habilidades sociales son aquellas que im- plican el poder interactuar y participar con otras personas. Estas habilidades incluyen el demostrar afecto, jugar con otros, escoger actividades, com- partir, resolver conflictos o problemas, identificar emociones y tener conocimiento de información personal (de sí mismo/a)” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 4). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the social emotional skills domain. One parent indicat- ed her child knew her full name, but she would like her child to, “work on her address, phone number, and city.” The other parent wanted their child to learn their “direcion, numero de telefono (address, telephone number). Parental wishes for social communication skills. The AEPS-3 FACS defines this domain as, “Social communication skills are those that involve communicating with others. These skills include listening, speaking, and understanding conver- sational rules and the use of grammar. / Las hab- ilidades de la comunicación social son aquellas que implican el comunicarse con otros. Estas ha- bilidades incluyen escuchar, hablar y entender las reglas que se siguen en uan conversación y el uso de la gramática” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 5). One of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the social communication skills domain. The parent wished to see their child, “be more precise and exact.” Parental wishes for literacy skills. The AEPS- 3 FACS defines this domain as, “Literacy skills are those that involve prereading and reading skills. These skills include page and book orientation, matching sounds with letters, recognizing letters and words, and writing letters and words. / Las habilidades de lectoescritura son aquellas que im- plican las habilidades prelectoras y lectoras. Estas habilidades incluyen la orientación de la página y el libro, el asignar a cada letra el sonido que le cor- responde y el reconocer y escribir letras y palabras” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 7). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the social emotional skills domain. One parent wrote that she would, “like her to continue to break down words & continue to practice reading.” Another parent would like to see their child, “escribir y dibyar los letras y numeros” (write and draw letters and numbers). Parental wishes for math skills. The AEPS-3 FACS defines this domain as, “Math skills are those that address numbers and number manipulation. These skills include counting, comparing numbers of items, and recognizing and writing numbers. / Las habilidades en matemáticas son aquellas que abordan los números y la manipulacion de los mis- mos. Estas habilidades incluyen el contar, comparer el numeró de cosas o articulos y el reconocer y es- cribir los número” (Bricker et al., 2022, p. 8). Two of the nine parents in this study provided a written response in the open-ended section of the social emotional skills domain. One parent wished for their child to, “work on learning bigger numbers.” Another parent wished for their child to learn to, “contor y reconocer los numeros” (count and recog- nize numbers). Overall Intervention Priorities Parents Want for their Child A total of three of the nine parents in this study completed the overall ‘Intervention Priorities’ sec- tion of the AEPS-3 FACS. This was an open-ended section with the direction stating: “Please list the next skills you would like your child to learn.” Pa- rental comments from the three participating par- ents are displayed in Table 11. Conclusion Special linguistic and cultural considerations are needed to effectively serve children and fami- lies (Brown et al., 2023; Crowe et al., 2021; Li, 2019; Steed et al., 2023). Access, participation, and sup- ports are principles that can be applied in the au- thentic assessment of children who are multilingual (DEC/NAEYC, 2009; Xu & Kuti, 2024; Zyskind & Macy, 2024). In addition to child and family sup- port considerations, early childhood professionals benefit from supportive assessment practices that foster smooth transitions from preschool to kin- TRANSITION “Access, participation, and supports are principles that can be applied in the authentic assessment of children who are multilingual.” The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 33 TRANSITION TABLE 11 Parent Response 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 19 23 1. 2. 3. - The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 34 Parents and professionals contribute to under- standing child development (Hardin et al., 2009; McFarland & Laird, 2018; Xu, 2020). Research on the AEPS tools for transition (i.e., Ready Set and FACS) are underway to learn more about parental and professional collaboration during assessment. In 2019, Stevenson examined kindergarten teach- ers’ experiences related to authentic assessment and the use of the AEPS for transition (Stevenson, 2019). Another study explored preschool teachers from Montessori programs in Florida and Ida- ho and their collaborative assessment experienc- es with parents using AEPS transition measures (Macy et al., 2022). Head Start educators and par- ents in rural part of America were part of a study using AEPS for transition to kindergarten (Macy et al., 2023), and this current study is an extension of that initial exploration with children who are mul- tilingual and enrolled in Head Start program. The small sample size of participants is a limita- tion of the study that needs to be considered when generalizing findings. Future directions for this research could examine training for early child- hood professionals to facilitate smooth transitions for inclusion. Preschoolers from rural areas may have unique assessment needs that warrant future research (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2023; Grish- am-Brown & McCormick, 2013; Hawkins-Lear & Grisham-Brown, 2019; Prusinski et al., 2023). Use of online assessment tools during transitions from preschool to kindergarten could help better understand children and families’ needs (Rahn et al., 2024). It would be helpful to study outcomes from collaborative authentic assessments for mul- tilingual learners compared to their monolingual peers with the parental/professional assessment approach (Bagnato & Macy, forthcoming). Aldous Huxley wrote, “Words form the thread on which we string our experiences.” This line from The Olive Tree punctuates the importance of words that can serve as a way to think about profession- al and parental engagement when children are multi-language learners. Words and experiences matter during times of transition. Acknowledgements We want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the families, teachers, rural Head Start program, and children in our study. This study was made possi- ble by a research grant awarded to the first author. References Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori pub- lic school pre-k programs and the school rea iness of low-income black and Latino children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1066 1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036799 Bagnato, S., & Macy, M. (2010). Authentic asses ment in action: A “R-E-A-L” solution. National Head Start Association Dialog, 13(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15240750903458121 Bagnato, S. J. & Macy, M. (in press g). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood inte vention: Best measures for best practice (3rd ed.). Brookes. Bagnato, S., Macy, M., Dionne, C., Smith, N., Brock, J. R., Larson, T., Londoño, M., Fevola, A., Bruder, M.B., & Cranmer, J. (2024). Authentic asses ment for early childhood intervention: In-v vo & virtual practices for interdisciplinary pr fessionals. Perspectives On Early Childhood Psychology and Education, 8(1), 43-74. https:/ doi.org/10.58948/2834-8257.1066 Bagnato, S. J., McLean, M., Macy, M., & Neisworth, J. (2011). Identifying instructional targets for early childhood via authentic assessment: Alig ment of professional standards and practice-based evidence. Journal of Ea ly Intervention, 33(4), 243-253. https://doi org/10.1177/1053815111427565 Barnard-Brak, L., Morales-Alemán, M.M., Tomeny, K., & McWilliam, R. A. (2021). Rural and r cial/ethnic differences in children receiving early intervention services. Family & Comm nity Health 44(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1097 FCH.0000000000000285 Bassok, D., & Latham, S. (2017). Kids today: The rise in children’s academic skills at Kindergarten entry. Educational Researcher, 46(1), 7–20. https://doi:10.3102/0013189X17694161 Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is ki dergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 2(1), 1-31. https://doi:10.1177/2332858415616 58 Beasley, J., Smith, N., & Scott-Little, C. (2023). Through their cultural lens: A qualitative approach to u derstanding Mexican immigrant families’ experien es with the transition to school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(8), 1401–1412. https://doi. org/10.1007s10643-022-01383-6 TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 35 Bipartisan Policy Center. (2023, October). Rural Child Care Policy Framework. https://bipa tisanpolicy.org/report/rural-child-care-pol cy-framework/ Bricker, D., Dionne, C., Grisham, J., Johnson, J.J., Macy, M., Slentz, K., & Waddell, M. (2022). AEPS®-3 ready-set. In D. Bricker, C. Dionne, J. Grisham, J.J. Johnson, M. Macy, K. Slentz, & M. Waddell, Assessment, Evaluation, and Progra ming System for Infants and Children, Third Edition (AEPS®-3). Baltimore: Brookes Publis ing Co. Bricker, D., Dionne, C., Grisham, J., Johnson, J.J., Macy, M., Slentz, K., & Waddell, M. (2022). A sessment, Evaluation, and Programming Sy tem for Infants and Children, Third Edition (AEPS®- 3). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. Brown, C. P., Ku, D. H., & Englehardt, J. (2023). Mixed understandings: A case study of how a sample of preschool stakeholders made sense of the changed kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(3), 545–557. https://doi org/10.1007/s10643-022-01315-4 Carotta, C., Born, S., Elverson, C., Hauck, A., & Hillerud, K. (2022). With-in child protective factors among rural Head Start children. Ea ly Childhood Education Journal, 50(6), 999 1009.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021 01234-w Cook, K.D. & Coley, R. L. (2017). School trans tion practices and children’s social and acade ic adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of E ucation Psychology, 109(2), 166-177. https:/ doi:10.1037/edu0000139 Crane, J., Mincic, M. S., & Winsler, A. (2011). Pa ent–teacher agreement and reliability on the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) in English and Spanish for ethnically diverse children living in poverty. Early Education and Development, 22(3), 520–547. https://doi:10.1 80/10409289.2011.565722 Crowe, K., Cuervo, S., Guiberson, M., & Washin ton, K. N. (2021). A systematic review of inte ventions for multilingual preschoolers with speech and language difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 64(11), 4413–4438. https://doi org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00073 Curby, T. W., Brown, C. A., Bassett, H. H., & De ham, S. A. (2015). Associations between pr schoolers’ social–emotional competence and preliteracy skills. Infant and Child Develo ment, 24(5), 549–570. https://doi:10.1002 icd.1899 Daley, T. C., Munk, T., & Carlson, E. (2011). A national study of kindergarten transition pra tices for children with disabilities. Early Chil hood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.001 de Sam Lazaro, S. L. (2017). The importance of authentic assessments in eligibility dete mination for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 88-105. https://doi org/10.1177/1053815116689061 DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Zinsser, K., & W att, T. M. (2014). How preschoolers’ social-em tional learning predicts their early school su cess: Developing theory-promoting, compete cy-based assessments. Infant Child Develo ment, 23(4), 426–454. https://doi.org/10.1002 icd.1840 D’Amico, L. K., Fan, X., Garrett, S., Zhang, X., Kilburn, J., Jones, A., & Richard, C. (2024). Supporting children and families with opportunity gaps: Educators’ pe spectives of a summer kindergarten transition pr gram. Educational Research & Evaluation, 29(5/6), 366–386. https://doi-org.libproxy.uwyo.edu/10.108 /13803611.2024.2352493 Dionne, C., Paquett, A., Lemire, C., Rousseau, M., D gas, C., Squires, J., Macy, M., Chen, C-I, Schonhaut, L., Pomes, M., Arias Beccerra, N.J., & Moratto Vasquez, N. S. (2021). Inclusive early childhood care and education: From commitment to action. U ESCO. https://unescdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223 pf0000378076 Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices: Findings from a n tional survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Chil hood Education Journal, 28(3), 199–206. https://doi org/10.1023/A:1026503520593 Fan, X., Linder, S., D’Amico, L. K., White, K. M., & Pa loski, T. (2022). Identifying the needs of prekinde garten children: A focus on health, wellbeing, and family environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(5), 823–840. https://doi-org.libproxy uwyo.edu/10.1007/s10643-021-01206-0 Gordon, R. A., Hofer, K. G., Fujimoto, K. A., Risk, N., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2015). Identif ing high-quality preschool programs: New evidence on the validity of the early childhood environment rating scale-revised (ECERS-R) in relation to school TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 36 readiness goals. Early Education and Development, 26(8), 1086–1110. Grisham-Brown, J., & McCormick, K. M. (2013). Le sons learned from work with international partners to inform rural practices for early childhood inte vention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200102 Grisham, J., Waddell, M., Crawford, R., & Toland, M. (2021). Psychometric Properties of the A sessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children–Third Edition (AEPS-3). Journal of Early Intervention, 43(1), 24–37. https:/ doi.org/10.1177/1053815120967359 Hardin, B., Mereoiu, M., Hung, H.-F., & Roach-Scott, M. (2009). Investigating parent and professional perspectives concerning special education services for preschool Latino children. Early Childhood E ucation Journal, 37(2), 93–102. https://doi-org.li proxy.uwyo.edu/10.1007/s10643-009-0336-x Harvey, H., & Wennerstrom, E. K. (2023). Hea ing their voices: Parents’ perceptions of preschool special education evaluations with dual-language learners. Topics in Early Childhood Special E ucation, 43(1), 46–59. https://doi-org.libproxy.uwyo edu/10.1177/02711214211005853 Hawkins-Lear, S., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2019). Teac ing early math skills to young children with disabi ities in rural blended early childhood settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38(1), 15–25. https:/ doi.org/10.1177/8756870518792907 La Paro, K., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ reported transition practices for children transitio ing into kindergarten and first grade. Exceptional Children, 67, 7–20. Macy, M., Argus-Calvo, B., & Fort, A. C. (2019a). Li tening and learning from families of young children/ El aprendizaje de las familias. In P. B. Valdivia, P. G. Moreno, G. M. Meraz, & I. R. Herrera (Eds.), El C erpo Académico UACH-CA-108 Investigación Psicoeducativa. https://uach.mx/catedraunesco/c erpos-academicos/ Macy, M., Argus-Calvo, B., Torres Hernández, S. X., & Hernández Collazo, R. L. (2019b). Co- producing culturally relevant services with families of young children with disabilities. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 47(2), 25-28. https://web.p.ebscohost com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7695 d5c-08dc-427b-bc1e-bb21c9831f0c%40redis Macy, M., Bricker, D. D., & Squires, J. K. (2005). Vali ity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 1-16. Macy, M., Bricker, D., Dionne, C., Grisham-Brown, J., Waddell, M., Slentz, K., Johnson, J., Behm, M., & Shrestha, H. (2015). Content validity analyses of qualitative feedback on the revised Assessment, Eva uation, & Programming System for infants and chi dren (AEPS) test. Journal of Intellectual Disability: Diagnosis and Treatment, 3(4), 177-186. Macy, M., Chen, C., & Macy, R. (2019). Assessment, eva uation, and programming system for infants and chi dren: Salient development and research factors to co sider. Journal of Intellectual Disability – D agnosis and Treatment, 7(3), 68-76. https://doi org/10.6000/2292-2598.2019.07.03.2 Macy, M., Pool, J., Chen, C., Rusiana, T., & Sawyer, M. (2022). A preliminary examination of a kinderga ten school readiness assessment. Early Chil hood Education Journal, 50, 1035–1046. https://doi org/10.1007/s10643-021-01237-7. Macy, M., Reid, M., & Macy, R. (2023). Where is there convergence/divergence in how parents and educ tors interpret child development and learning? Head Start Dialog: The Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 26(2), 24-47. https:/ doi.org/10.55370/hsdialog.v26i2.1507 McFarland, L., & Laird, S. G. (2018). Parents’ and early childhood educators’ attitudes and practices in relation to children’s outdoor risky play. Early Chil hood Education Journal, 46(2), 159–168. https://doi org/10.1007/s10643-017-0856-8 McWilliam, R. A. (2005). Assessing the resource needs of families in the context of early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems a proach to early intervention (pp. 215-234). Balt more: Brookes. Mickelson, A. M., McCorkle, L. S., & Hoffman, R. (2022). Joint planning in part c early intervention: Partn ering around assessment. Young Exceptional Chi dren, 25(2), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250620952061 Miller, M. M., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2017). Profiles of social–emotional readiness for 4-year old kinde garten. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(132), 1-9. https:/ doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00132 Murphy, M. A., McCormick, K. M., & Rous, B. S. (2013). Rural influence on the use of transition pra tices by preschool teachers. Rural Special E ucation Quarterly, 32(1), 29–37. https://doi org/10.1177/875687051303200105 Nakajima, N., Hasan, A., Jung, H., Brinkman, S., Pra han, M., & Kinnell, A. (2019). Investing in school readiness: A comparison of different early childhood education pathways in rural Indonesia. Internatio al Journal of Educational Development, 69(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.05.009 Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Snow, K. L. (2007). School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 37 of accountability. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Prusinski, E., Mahler, P. P., Collins, M., & Couch, H. (2023). Strengthening early childhood education and care in a “childcare desert.” Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(7), 1317–1333. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-022-01375-6 Rahn, N. L., La Croix, L., Shin, D. L., Gravil, M., Chen, C.-I., Hix-Small, H., Arora, S., Grisham, J., Rutland, J. H., Chai, Z., Mickelson, A. M., & Xie, H. (2024). Using an online assessment tool to teach authentic assessment to early childhood teacher candidates. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 43(3), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705241249472 Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 50(4), 471–491. https://doi:10.1353/mpq.2004.003410 Regalla, M., Peker, H., & Macy, M. (2024). An exa ination of an inclusive French immersion program and preschoolers’ executive functioning skills. Fo eign Language Annals (of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). https:/ doi:10.1111/flan.12773 Sands, M. M., & Meadan, H. (2022). A successful kinde garten transition for children with disabilities: Collaboration throughout the process. Early Chil hood Education Journal, 50(7), 1133–1141. https:/ doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01246-6 Sands, M. M., & Meadan, H. (2024). Transition to ki dergarten for children with disabilities: Parent and kindergarten teacher perceptions and experien es. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(4), 265–277. https://doi org/10.1177/02711214221146748 Shapiro, B. J., & Derrington, T. M. (2004). Equity and disparity in access to services: An outcomes-based evaluation of early intervention child find in Hawai’i. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(4), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140402400 0201 Shaul, S., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The role of the exec tive functions in school readiness among pr school-age children. Reading and Writing: An I terdisciplinary Journal, 27(4), 749–768. https://doi org/10.1007/s11145-013-9470-3 Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N., Witte, A. L., Iruka, I., & Knoche, L. L. (2020). Longitudinal and geographic trends in family engagement during the pre-kinde garten to kindergarten transition. Early Chil hood Education Journal, 48(3), 365–377. https://doi org/10.1007/s10643-019-01008-5 Smith, J., & Clegg, J. (2021). Providing consistency in care: a case study of bilingual and bicultural early childhood education for farmworker children in r ral midwestern United States. Early Child Develo ment & Care, 191(10), 1636–1650. https://doi.org/1 .1080/03004430.2019.1670652 Snyder, P. A., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., M Laughlin, T. W., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. E. (2015). Naturalistic instructional approaches in ea ly learning: A systematic review. Journal of Early I tervention, 37(1), 69–97. https://doi-org.ezproxy.net ucf.edu/10.1177/1053815115595461 Steed, E. A., Stein, R., Burke, H., & Charlifue-Smith, R. (2023). Early childhood professionals’ reported use of culturally and linguistically responsive practices during initial evaluations: A mixed methods study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(3), 214-226. https://doi org/10.1177/02711214231163720 Stevenson, W. (2019). Examining school readiness. U published dissertation study. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Teleki, J. K., & Buck-Gomez, S. (2002). Child care and early education: Satisfaction with services among r ral families. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(3), 161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014532524941 U.S. Census (2020). https://www.census gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census decade/2020/2020-census-results.html Washington-Nortey, P.-M., Zhang, F., Xu, Y., Ruiz, A. B., Chen, C.-C., & Spence, C. (2022). The impact of peer interactions on language development among pr school English language learners: A systematic r view. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(1), 49 59. https://doi-org.libproxy.uwyo.edu/10.1007 s10643-020-01126-5 Williams, M. E., Perrigo, J. L., Banda, T. Y., Matic, T., & Goldfarb, F. D. (2013). Barriers to accessing services for young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(1), 61–74. https://doi org/10.1177/1053815113507111 Xu, Y. (2020). Engaging families of young children with disabilities through family-school-community par nerships. Early Child Development & Care, 190(12), 1959–1968. https://doi-org.libproxy.uwyo.edu/10.1 80/03004430.2018.1552950 Xu, Y., Chen, C.-C., Spence, C., Washington-Nortey, M., Zhang, F., & Brown, A. (2022). Supporting young Spanish speaking English learners through teacher scaffolding and reciprocal peer tutoring. Early Child Development & Care, 192(8), 1324–1336. https:/ doi-org.libproxy.uwyo.edu/10.1080/03004430.2021 1874944 Xu, Y., & Kuti, L. (2024). Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(8), 1474–1487. https://doi-org.lib- TRANSITION The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 38 proxy.uwyo.edu/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662 Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (Eds.) (1993). Head start and beyond: A national plan for extended childhood i tervention. New Haven: Yale University Press. Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2000). Pioneering steps (and fumbles) in developing a federal preschool interve tion. Topics in Early Childhood Sp cial Education, 20(2), 67-70. https://doi org/10.1177/027112140002000201 Zyskind, K. & Macy, M. (2024). Authentic assessment for children with language considerations: Early identification and connection to services. Perspe tives On Early Childhood Psychology and Education, 8(1), 111-143. https://doi.org/10.58948/2834 8257.1069 TRANSITION