This presentation will answer the following research questions: (1) What was the intended implementation of the training and coaching component of Foundations of Learning (FOL)?; (2) To what extent was the training and consultation implemented as intended?; and (3) How did the combined training and coaching model utilized in the FOL project influence children's behavior and approaches to learning? FOL emerged from early lessons from CSRP, a randomized trial of 18 Head Start centers directed by Dr. Cybele Raver that tested the effectiveness of a uniquely designed two-pronged integrated strategy that combined teacher training and classroom consultation (most models only utilize one of these methods). The FOL project was launched in Newark, New Jersey, in two phases: a smaller-scale pilot phase during the 2006-2007 school year, followed by a second larger scale phase in the 2007-2008 school year. In Chicago, Illinois, the project was launched during the 2008-2009 academic year. The implementation and impact findings in Chicago, coupled with the earlier analysis of the Chicago School Readiness Project and FOL-Newark, indicate a positive benefit to classrooms and students for the combined training and consultation model. Classrooms appear to be better managed by teachers, and students are more positively engaged and exhibit less conflictual behavior. Notably, having an explicit and manualized process for consultation and clear standards and access to support about the various phases of consultation, was a critical driver of the intervention implementation process and provided a standard from which to understand if consultation occurred as intended. However, the data varied slightly across these studies and follow up data is limited in FOL. Further studies would benefit from a consistency in measures across sites and include pre and post measurement of both classrooms and children. As mentioned in the finding sections, independent observations and assessments appear to be less biased, more fine-tuned instruments for illustrating the differences across groups of children and classrooms. In addition, while there has been some focus and follow up on outcomes for children beyond the intervention year, further data collection on the impact of the model on teachers in subsequent years could more fully illustrate the model's potential impact. (Contains 1 figure and 3 tables.)