Showing that Early Childhood Education Works: Lessons from Italy, China, and the USA

Lessons from around the world; What does it matter about early childhood education? Why the controversy about public support for early childhood education? What process or system should be used to determine what works in early education? Can the same process be used to improve services? What is the role of government? Alternatives: 1. Consumers should determine… (What happens when private choices drive the market for early childhood services?) Observed quality of care in four Midwestern states; Parent data: “All things considered, how would you grade the quality of the care your child is receiving from his/her current caregiver?” Role of government What is a Quality Rating System? Ten states have implemented statewide systems (e.g. Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Carolina) Findings 2. Objective science should determine… Firm findings from empirical research 3. Something else is needed: Some differences between Italian and American models. Teacher action research (and documentation) from a Reggio-inspired preschool in South Korea by Misuk Kim. Teacher Action Research at the Ruth Staples CDL. Can we now answer our opening questions? What process or system should be used to determine what is best for young children? Can the same process be used to improve the quality of services? Conclusions: The free market does not work well to determine quality in early education and care; Licensing, accreditation, and quality rating systems can help improve the market; Empirical research is useful for measuring what works; Teacher action research (reflective practice) is necessary for fostering continuous quality improvement. The tower of quality.

QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI FOR AGRONOMIC AND END-USE QUALITY PERFORMANCE AND THE EFFECT OF SOILBORNE WHEAT MOSAIC VIRUS IN A HARD WINTER WHEAT POPULATION IN NEBRASKA

To better understand agronomic and end-use quality in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) we developed a population containing 154 F6:8 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) from the cross TAM107-R7/Arlin. The parental lines and RILs were phenotyped at six environments in Nebraska and differed for resistance to Wheat soilborne mosaic virus (WSBMV), morphological, agronomic, and end-use quality traits. Additionally, a 2300 cM genome-wide linkage map was created for quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis. Based on our results across multiple environments, the best RILs could be used for cultivar improvement. The population and marker data are publicly available for interested researchers for future research. The population was used to determine the effect of WSBMV on agronomic and end-use quality and for the mapping of a resistance locus. Results from two infected environments showed that all but two agronomic traits were significantly affected by the disease. Specifically, the disease reduced grain yield by 30% of susceptible RILs and they flowered 5 d later and were 11 cm shorter. End-use quality traits were not negatively affected but flour protein content was increased in susceptible RILs. The resistance locus SbmTmr1 mapped to 27.1 cM near marker wPt-5870 on chromosome 5DL using ELISA data. Finally, we investigated how WSBMV affected QTL detection in the population. QTLs were mapped at two WSBMV infected environments, four uninfected environments, and in the resistant and susceptible RIL subpopulations in the infected environments. Fifty-two significant (LOD≥3) QTLs were mapped in RILs at uninfected environments. Many of the QTLs were pleiotropic or closely linked at 6 chromosomal regions. Forty-seven QTLs were mapped in RILs at WSBMV infected environments. Comparisons between uninfected and infected environments identified 20 common QTLs and 21 environmentally specific QTLs. Finally, 24 QTLs were determined to be affected by WSBMV by comparing the subpopulations in QTL analyses within the same environment. The comparisons were statistically validated using marker by disease interactions. These results showed that QTLs can be affected by WSBMV and careful interpretation of QTL results is needed where biotic stresses are present. Finally, beneficial QTLs not affected by WSBMV or the environment are candidates for marker-assisted selection.