THE CENTER FOR IDEAEARLY CHILDHOOD DATA SYSTEMS

Incorporating EC Data into Your State’s Longitudinal Data System: Why Does it Matter to Part C and 619?

Lori McReynolds, KansasTiffany Smith, KansasPhil Koshkin, MarylandBrian Morrison, MarylandAmy Nicholas, DaSyMissy Cochenour, DaSy/SLDS State Support Team

2

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.

3

• 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

National Overview

National Context

• Where are states trying to go?• They are all in very different places:

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?

o 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

conversationo 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

2006 & 2007

Competitions

K12

2009Competitio

n

2009 ARRA

Competition

K12 + ONE

of the following:

EC, Postsec,

Workforce, OR

Student-Teacher link

K12 + ALLof the

following:EC, Postsec, Workforce,

AND Student-

Teacher link

# of grants:

Avg. award:

14 &13$3.7M & 4.8M

27

$5.6M

20

$12.5M

2012Competiti

on

ONEof the

following:K12, EC,

OR Postsec/ Workforce

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

15

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.• The DaSy Center• SLDS Early Childhood State Support Team

16

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

17

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

18

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?

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 WSS-K.

• 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 2011 Math

N M SD M SD

General Ed Gr 3 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

Special Ed Gr 3* 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 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.

24

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)

25

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

26

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

27

Audience Poll Activity

Source: Google Image

28

Wrap-Up: Comments and/or Questions

Source: Google Image