Transcript Incorporating EC Data into Your State’s Longitudinal Data

THE CENTER FOR IDEA
EARLY CHILDHOOD DATA SYSTEMS
Incorporating EC Data into Your State’s
Longitudinal Data System: Why Does it Matter
to Part C and 619?
Lori McReynolds, Kansas
Tiffany Smith, Kansas
Phil Koshkin, Maryland
Brian Morrison, Maryland
Amy Nicholas, DaSy
Missy Cochenour, DaSy/SLDS State Support Team
Session Objectives
• The objectives for this session are to:
• Provide basic information about the differences between an Early
Childhood Integrated Data System (ECIDS) and a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS);
• Share the perspectives and experiences of panelists as they discuss
how their states are working to build ECIDs and incorporate EC data
into their SLDSs;
• Review state and national examples, and present the unique
challenges and benefits to building ECIDSs, particularly as they
relate to the inclusion of Part C and Part B 619 data; and
• Discuss why having an integrated longitudinal data system matters
to Part C and Part B 619.
2
National Overview
• Federal Motivators
•
•
•
•
•
President's early childhood education budget
NCES- SLDS Program
RTT-Early Learning Challenge
OSEP/IDEA Reporting Requirements
HHS Federal Reporting (Head Start, Home
Visiting, QPR)
• Early Childhood Advisory Councils
3
National Context
• Where are states trying to go?
• They are all in very different places:
o
o
Pre- Planning (thinking): Which states are thinking of expanding
SLDS to include early childhood? Which states are planning to
coordinate their SLDS with their ECIDS?
Three stages:
• Planning (actually developing a work plan)
• Implementing (implementing the work plan and beginning to
build)
• Leading (providing lessons learned from the work)
• Phased development (a certain number of programs
included in each phase)
Lessons Learned
• Governance matters!
• Data contributors need to be included early on in the
conversation
o
•
•
•
•
May make things move more slowly in the beginning, but will be
beneficial in long term
Understand the unique needs of early childhood
Leverage lessons from other sectors
Data use improves data quality; data use depends on
access
The devil is in the details (e.g. Unique ID - we may all agree
on what this is until we have to develop the process for
making come to life)
How do I know if there is a SLDS and/or
ECIDS initiative taking place in my state?
• Which states have
a federal SLDS
grant?
• Which states are
working on an
ECIDS?
SLDS Grant Program Evolution
# of grants:
2006 & 2007
Competitions
2009
Competition
2009 ARRA
Competition
2012
Competition
K12
K12 + ONE
K12 + ALL
of the
following:
EC, Postsec,
Workforce,
OR StudentTeacher link
of the following:
EC, Postsec,
Workforce,
Student-Teacher
link
ONE
of the
following:
K12, EC, OR
Postsec/
Workforce
27
$5.6M
20
$12.5M
14 &13
Avg. award: $3.7M & 4.8M
AND
24
$4.1M
Awards
FY06
Awards
FY06
FY07
Awards
FY06
FY07
FY09
Awards
FY06
FY07
FY09
FY09 ARRA
Awards
FY06
FY07
FY09
FY09 ARRA
FY12
RTT-ELC Grant Context
• One subsection of the grant program relates to the
development of an ECIDS (Subsection E2)
• 10 out of 14 grantees have an ECIDS included in
their scope of work
• Many states are building upon the work supported
by SLDS grants
RTT-ELC Grant: ECIDS Projects
Awards
FY06
FY07
FY09
FY09 ARRA
FY12
So what does this mean for Part C and
619?
• Many states are moving forward with creating and
linking their ECIDS to their K12 and beyond SLDS.
• Federal support can be leveraged to establish the
state governance and infrastructure needed to
involve Part C and 619 in the work and sustain this
involvement over time.
•
•
15
The DaSy Center
SLDS Early Childhood State Support Team
How are Part C and 619 being involved
in ECIDS initiatives?
• Kansas
• School Readiness Framework
• Build from lessons learned from Part C and 619
• Unique Identifier (KIDS ID) for Part C & 616
• Maryland
• The Maryland State Department of Education’s Division of
Early Childhood Development is leading the ECIDS
initiative
• Part C and 619 have worked with the initiatives leaders to identify
data elements to be integrated
16
What benefits have states identified with
including Part C and 619 data in their ECIDS?
• Kansas
• A shared child outcomes data system for Part C & 619 APR
data
• Being included in the state conversation around EC
Initiatives
• Support of our IT Director
• EC Leadership Team developed
• Maryland
• More comprehensive data for school readiness policy
planning, resource allocation, and kindergarten
assessment data analysis
17
What unique challenges have states
experienced when integrating Part C and 619
data into their ECIDS?
• Kansas
• Determining accessible and additional data needed
• Aligning our data standards through CEDS
• Data system only meets Federal requirements
• Only child-specific data obtained through 619
• Maryland
• Increased privacy concerns
• Differences in data collection and reporting
• How can we make the ECIDS useful to Part C/619 given
they have a robust longitudinal data system of their own?
18
July 2013
Sample Maryland Analysis #1
• How does participation in Part C enhance children’s
later performance on the Kindergarten Work
Sampling System (WSS-K; i.e. state kindergarten
readiness assessment)?
• For every month earlier a child starts receiving services,
he/she is expected to score .017 SD increase on the WSSK.
• For children receiving Part C services, WSS-K was higher
for students not economically disadvantaged, higher for
girls, and for White students.
Source: Carran, D., Nunn, J., Hooks, S., & Dammann, K. (2013, February). Uses of a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System to evaluate and inform programs, policies, and resource allocations.
Presented at26th Annual Management Information Systems Conference, Washington, DC.
Sample Maryland Analysis #2
• For children who received Part C services, where are
they at Grade 3? (N = 2482)
•
•
•
58% missing data, not matched Part C to Grade 3
65.6%, n = 1,628 enrolled as General Education student
at Grade 3
34.4%, n = 854 enrolled as Special Education student at
Grade 3
Source: Carran, D., Nunn, J., Hooks, S., & Dammann, K. (2013, February). Uses of a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System to evaluate and inform programs, policies, and resource allocations.
Presented at26th Annual Management Information Systems Conference, Washington, DC.
Sample Maryland Analysis #3
• For children who received Part C services, how do
they compare to their General Education and Special
Education peers on Grade 3 State Academic
Assessments?
Source: Carran, D., Nunn, J., Hooks, S., & Dammann, K. (2013, February). Uses of a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System to evaluate and inform programs, policies, and resource allocations.
Presented at26th Annual Management Information Systems Conference, Washington, DC.
Maryland Grade 3 Students:
Average State Assessment Scores at Grade 3 Scores by
Previous Part C and Special Education Status
2011 Reading
N
General Ed Gr 3
M
2011 Math
SD
M
SD
47928
430.8
38.2
429.9
41.1
No Part C
46300
430.9
38.2
429.9
41.1
Yes Part C
1628
427.8
39.1
428.6
41.7
3994
368.0
120.6
364.6
114.4
No Part C
3377
371.5
117.3
367.1
111.2
Yes Part C
617
349.2
135.9
350.9
129.8
Special Ed Gr 3*
*Special Education = eligibility of Speech/Language, Specific Learning Disability,
Emotional Disturbance or Other Health Impairment
Source: Carran, D., Nunn, J., Hooks, S., & Dammann, K. (2013, February). Uses of a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System to evaluate and inform programs, policies, and resource allocations.
Presented at26th Annual Management Information Systems Conference, Washington, DC.
State Level Analyses Conclusions:
Children in Grade 3
• Children in General Education
• When controlling for race, gender, and FaRMs, Reading and Math scores
are higher for:
• Students not receiving FaRMs;
• Females; and
• White students.
• Students with a history of Part C scored slightly lower on average
(Reading: 3.1 M diff; Math: 1.3 M diff)
• Children in Special Education
• When controlling for race, gender, and FaRMs, Reading and Math scores
are higher for:
• Students not receiving FaRMs;
• Females; and
• White students
• Students with a history of Part C scored lower on average (Reading: 22.3
M diff; Math: 16.2 M diff)
24
What hopes and dreams do states have for
their integrated systems?
• Kansas
• What we hope to gain from our involvement
• Vision Statement: Meaningful, accessible information
for children, families, educational environments and
communities to attain school readiness and success for
all Kansas children.
• Questions we hope to be able to answer that we aren’t
able to answer now
• Have identified eight priority policy questions
25
What hopes and dreams do states have for
their integrated systems?
• Maryland
• Implementation of a statewide Birth through 21 model for
data-driven decision-making by state and local district
special education/early intervention teams
• Improve timeliness of data exchange between special
education data warehouse and general education systems
• Daily refreshing of data for purposefully-selected
research-based data elements associated with school
performance
• Allow for near real-time analyses
26
Audience Poll Activity
Source: Google Image
27
Wrap-Up: Comments and/or Questions
Source: Google Image
28