Oerc 3 27-2014 overall ppt final

EXAMINING OHIO’S APPROACH TO MEASURING STUDENT SUCCESS

SERIES SESSION #3: RESEARCH & MEASURES TO SUPPORT QUALITY EARLY

CHILDHOOD INITIATIVES IN OHIO

March 27, 2014

Making Research Work for Educat ion

2

WELCOME

THE OHIO EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTER

A collaborative of Ohio-based research universities & institutions

Focused on a statewide research agenda

Addressing critical issues of education practice and policy

4

The mission of the Ohio Education Research Center (OERC) is to develop and implement a statewide, preschool-through-workforce research agenda to address critical issues of education practice and policy. Our intent is to identify and share successful practices; respond to the needs of Ohio’s educators and policymakers; and signal emerging trends. We intend to communicate findings broadly through multiple platforms and networks, producing materials, products and tools to improve educational practice, policy, and outcomes.

OERC’S MISSION

5

State Landscape: Ohio’s Early Learning System

OERC Early Childhood Research

Feedback Activity

OERC Learning Network — Brief Demonstration

Next Steps/Closing

TODAY’S AGENDA

STATE LANDSCAPE: OHIO’S EARLY LEARNING

SYSTEM

Stephanie Siddens, Ph.D., Director, Offi ce of Early Learning and School Readiness, Ohio

Department of EducationAlicia Leatherman, Deputy Director, Division

of Child Care, Offi ce of Family Assistance, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

7

QUESTIONS?

OERC EARLY CHILDHOOD

RESEARCH

Ear ly Chi ldhood Research & Measures Symposium 3 /27/2014

9

Tina Kassebaum, Ph.D., Strategic Research Group (SRG)

Lauren Porter, Program Manager, Ohio Education Research Center at The Ohio State University

Rob Fischer, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences of Case Western Reserve University

Jennifer Zimmerman, Evaluation Consultant, Resilient Children Project

Jerry M. Jordan, Ph.D., Research Associate, University of Cincinnati’s Evaluation Service Center

OERC EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH PRESENTERS

OERC Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium

March 27, 2014

2013 WORKFORCE STUDY:

OHIO EARLY LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Purpose: To provide an overview of the current characteristics of the childhood workforce in Ohio.

Policy Implication: Over 20 years of research has consistently found a link between the level of education and compensation of the early childhood workforce, and the program quality and outcomes for children.

Key components of study:

Demographics of the childhood workforce

Staff education, credentials, and wage

Benefits offered to staff, turnover, and reasons for staying/leaving

11

PURPOSE OF STUDY

History (Similar Studies)2001 mail survey - 314 ODJFS programs2005 mail survey - 989 ODJFS & ODE programs

2013: Sample of 3,600 randomly selected early learning and development programs 2,388 ODJFS-licensed programs1,212 ODE-licensed programs

12

STUDY BACKGROUND

Surveys: Program Director SurveyTeacher Survey

Data Collection:Web-based surveys Invitation letters mailed to Program Directors

Two mailings 2 weeks apartTelephone and (if possible) email follow-up invitations

RESEARCH DESIGN

4

Response Rate:30% for directors and 23% for selected teachers

40% for ODJFS and 20% for ODE

10% held NAEYC Accreditation

Two Reports GeneratedGeneral Analysis (comparisons to 2005 study)A Profession Divided (comparisons by program type)

RESPONSE RATES & REPORTS

5

Six program sponsorship types Total Programs = 1060

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS: SPONSORSHIP TYPES

10.1%

7.5%

32.1%

20.8%

20.5%

9.0% ODE School-Affiliated

ODE Other

ODJFS For-Profit

ODJFS Nonprofit

ODJFS Faith-Affiliated

Head Start

6

Majority still female and Caucasian Slight increase in gender and ethnic diversity in

2013

In both 2005 and 2013, ODE staff tended to be older than ODJFS staff

WORKFORCE DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY

2005 2013

ODJFS ODE ODJFS ODE

Caucasian

Director 91% 95% 82% 91%

Teacher 87% 92% 76% 91%

Female

Director 98% 94% 97% 91%

Teacher 97% 96% 97% 92%

7

DEGREES HELD BY PROGRAM STAFF

ODJFS 2005

ODJFS 2013

ODE 2005

ODE 2013

57%43%

20% 17%

43%57%

80% 83%

TeacherLess than AAAA or Higher

ODJFS 2005

ODJFS 2013

ODE 2005

ODE 2013

88% 85%

46% 38%

12% 15%

54% 62%

Director

Less than Graduate DegreeGraduate Degree

8

A higher percentage of directors and teachers of ODE-licensed programs have credentials compared to those of ODJFS-licensed programs

CREDENTIALS HELD BY PROGRAM STAFF

Teachers Directors

Credential

Program with

Highest Percentage

%Program with

Highest Percentage

%

Child Development Associate

Head Start 26.2 ODJFS For-Profit 23.2

Pre-K Associate License Head Start 28.6 Head Start 23.2

EC Teacher License ODE Other 47.0ODE (both) & Head Start

25.2 - 26.3

Other Teaching LicenseODE School-Affiliated

54.4ODE School-Affiliated

72.0

9

Continued disparity between wages of ODE-licensed programs and ODJFS-licensed programs Current wages for ODE-licensed staff average over $9 more per

hour The average highest wage reported for ODJFS-licensed teaching

staff ($12.58) is lower than the average starting wage reported for ODE-licensed staff ($13.57)

In general, more education is associated with higher hourly pay Directors and staff with graduate degrees in ECE or CD claim

higher salaries than the same degree in another field

However, program sponsorship clearly matters as ODE-licensed staff tend to earn higher wages than ODJFS-licensed staff for the same degree

WAGES

10

AVERAGE CURRENT WAGES REPORTED BY STAFF

ODJFS ODE

$13.56

$23.48

$16.08

$25.42

Directors

2005

2013

ODJFS ODE

$9.59

$16.32

$11.36

$20.79

Teaching Staff

2005

2013

11

ODE School-Affiliated


ODJFS For-Profit

ODJFS Nonprofit ODE Other Head Start

CredentialChild Development Associate $18.58 $15.52 $14.42 $12.99 $12.29 $17.00

Pre-K Associate License $29.00 $14.39 $15.26 $16.24 $23.45 $17.33

EC Teacher License $38.52 $14.57 $16.97 $16.04 $21.78 $15.36

Other Teaching License $31.88 $14.79 $16.48 $18.43 $25.64 $15.94

Highest Degree Earned

AA ECE or CD $16.35 $14.74 $14.82 $15.76 $12.89 $17.73

BA/BS ECE or CD $21.99 $15.49 $16.94 $18.22 $19.12 $15.98

Graduate Degree in ECE or CD $36.12 $16.90 $19.00 $21.08 $24.78 $18.18

Graduate Degree in Another Field $31.32 $15.10 $12.46 $19.42 $27.30 $15.07

DIRECTORS: AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE

12

TEACHERS: AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE

ODE School-

Affiliated

ODJFS Faith-

Affiliated

ODJFS For-Profit

ODJFS Nonprofit

ODE Other

Head Start

CredentialChild Development Associate $15.54 $11.15 $11.14 $11.92 - $13.14

Pre-K Associate License $21.00 $11.74 $10.43 $16.65 $20.97 $15.53

EC Teacher License $24.62 $13.07 $11.61 $11.77 $25.10 $13.43

Other Teaching License $23.24 $12.87 $11.92 $12.32 $25.80 $13.21

Highest Degree Earned

AA ECE or CD $15.94 $12.44 $10.64 $12.29 $14.23 $14.28

BA/BS ECE or CD $16.92 $12.29 $12.32 $12.10 $19.66 $14.44

Graduate Degree in ECE or CD $26.84 $14.22 $12.00 $13.90 $31.75 $15.03

Graduate Degree in Another Field $25.47 $10.86 $10.70 $10.99 $20.79 -13

BENEFITS BY PROGRAM TYPE

ODE School-Affiliated


ODJFS For-Profit

ODJFS Nonprofit

ODE Other

Head Start

62%

19%

33%

38%

71%

92%

49%

10%

20%

28%

53%

77%

81%

20%

24%

51%

71%

93%

Retirement Benefits

Dental Benefits

Health Benefits

14

Generally, from 2005 to 2013 the percentage of programs offering benefits other than health and dental coverage has increased (e.g., reduced fee or free child care, paid maternity leave, paid education expenses and training)

OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

15

Increase from 2005 to 2013 in percentage of staff employed at their program for more than 5 years

Greater longevity for directors and teaching staff in ODE-licensed programs compared to ODJFS-licensed programs

Turnover rates among teaching staff are higher for ODJFS-licensed programs than ODE-licensed programs, and almost identical to those of 2005

Turnover rates for directors of ODE-licensed and ODJFS-licensed programs continue to be similar, decreasing from 2005 to 2013

LONGEVITY & TURNOVER

16

TURNOVER RATES

Director Teachers Assistant Teachers

11%

21%

29%

10% 10%12%

2005

Director Teachers Assistant Teachers

6%

22%

30%

6%11% 13%2013

ODJFS

ODE

17

ODE School-Affiliate

d

ODJFS Faith-

Affiliated

ODJFS For-Profit

ODJFS Nonprofi

t

ODE Other

Head Start

Total

DirectorsBetter pay 26% 56% 61% 48% 52% 76% 53%Better benefits 3% 18% 23% 21% 12% 0% 16%

More help/support/ resources 3% 6% 15% 15% 8% 19% 11%

Work more/fewer hours 7% 9% 10% 10% 4% 0% 8%

More staff/retain good, qualified staff 3% 4% 13% 10% 8% 5% 8%

TeachersBetter pay 24% 70% 69% 78% 55% 73% 68%Better benefits 12% 28% 18% 26% 10% 9% 20%

Full-time employment or better hours 29% 12% 5% 9% 5% 9% 9%

Stable enrollment/job security 12% 6% 0% 3% 15% 23% 6%

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED INCENTIVES FOR STAYING IN ECE/CD FIELD

18

Results highlight the continued disparity between ODE-licensed and ODJFS-licensed programs

Compared to staff of ODJFS-licensed programs, ODE-licensed program staff tend to: Receive higher wages and be offered more benefits Be older, more gender diverse, and less ethnically diverse Attain more credentials and higher levels of education Turnover less frequently and be employed longer

Despite increases in diversity, wages, and non-medical benefi ts, the gap in education and wages between ODE-licensed and ODJFS-licensed programs persists

Teachers and directors holding the same degrees and credentials are paid more than two times the rate in a school-affi liated setting than in for-profi t centers l icensed by ODJFS.

FINDINGS SUMMARY

19

THANK YOU

[email protected] | oerc.osu.edu

COMPREHENSIVE PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION

Lauren Porter, Ohio Education Research Center

Debbie Zorn, University of CincinnatiImelda Castañeda-Emenaker, University of

Cincinnati

31

There are 860,000 children ages 5 and under.

Currently over 11,000 licensed early learning programs.

3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium

Existing Landscape as of February 2013:

32

Ohio Department of Education Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Ohio Department of Health Ohio Department of Mental Health Ohio Department of Developmental

Disabilities


Agencies Serving Children Birth–5

33

RttT ELC Grant – 2011.

Designed to improve state funded network of programs.

One ELC initiative: develop extensive early learning professional development system.


Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Grant

34

Mission: CPDS designed to provide appropriate professional development to early learning and development professionals working with children aged birth-5 years, enhancing their competencies and skills.


Comprehensive Professional Development System (CPDS)

35

Monitored Evaluated Aligned to standards from multiple sectors Based on research Supply data for analysis, reporting, and evaluation Support RttT-ELC Outcomes Coordinated, using common elements when possible Aligned to Ohio Core Knowledge and Competencies


CPDS Guiding Principles

36

Establishment of a seamless Comprehensive Professional Development System.

Activities include interviews of policy stakeholders & practitioner stakeholders and survey of the Regional PD Network.


Evaluation Question 1

37

Appraise the development and usefulness of the 16 new PD modules.

Activities include a needs assessment conducted by OCCRRA, expert review of modules, and PD participant feedback.



38

Appraise the actual delivery of PD content.

Activities include retrospective interviews with PD participants and Regional PD network members and observation of PD modules.



39

OCCRRA Project Team and the OERC team have met regularly to gather materials related to the evaluation and train on evaluation instruments.

Integral to the CPDS evaluation are the interviews from a variety of different practitioners: OCCRRA Project Team Regional PD Coordinators PD participants


Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration

40

Currently in preparation stages of research. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is being

sought through The Ohio State University. While this application is pending, research

activities (interviews, surveys, data analysis) may not be conducted.

Delay has presented an opportunity to develop materials for later stages of the research project.


Boon and Bane of IRB

41

Upon IRB approval, next steps are: initial data access, interviews, and an in-depth examination of one module from development to implementation and impacts.

Potential policy impacts: PD options that better serve early learning and development professionals in all settings and a more aligned approach to early learning professional development across state agencies.


Moving Forward

THANK YOU

Robert L. Fischer, Ph.D., Claudia J. Coulton, Ph.D., and

Seok- Joo Kim, Ph.D.

Center on Urban Poverty & Community DevelopmentJack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social

SciencesCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

March 27, 2014 – Columbus, OH

INVESTIGATING THE PATHWAY TO PROFICIENCY

FROM BIRTH THROUGH 3RD GRADE: INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM (IDS)

APPROACH

BACKGROUND

Study significance:

• Importance of early childhood exposureso Early exposure to stressful circumstances,

environmental hazards, and less than optimal early learning environments negatively and persistently affect early development.

• Usefulness of longitudinal data• State adopted “3rd Grade Reading Guarantee” to ensure that students pass reading proficiency test before advancing beyond 3rd grade

• Districts can be more aware of risk factors for students being held back as the policy is implemented

BACKGROUND

Study aims:

Aim 1. Assess the practicality of linking early childhood and K-3 student records and potential usefulness of the resulting information to local schools (A)&(B)

Aim 2. Determine how individual, family, and environmental risk factors in early childhood interact with participation in early childhood education programs to influence kindergarten readiness (A)

Aim 3. Estimate the effects of early childhood risk factors and experiences on student progress over grades 1 to 3 (B)

Aim 4. Identify child-level indices, including kindergarten readiness and reading-growth trajectories, that in their combination accurately predict reading proficiency in third grade (A)&(B)

Note: (A) In process and (B) After April, 2014

COHORT DESIGN

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 3

Cohort 4

B 3rdK

B 3rdK

B 3rdK

B 3rdK

2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Year

Retrospective Prospective

SAMPLING

Criteria

Enrolled in Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) Kindergarten in the school years of 2008-2011

First time enrollment of Kindergarten

Have a valid KRA-L score

With Ohio Birth-Certificate & Addresses

16,840

15,581

11,999

9,777

Selection criteria N

• Unduplicated cases (students)

• Will be updated from EMIS data

• Will be updated from Medicaid data

• Missing imputation

KRA-L &3rd grade reading*

Neighborhood

• Concentrated disadvantage

• Immigrant concentration*

• Crime *

School• School

characteristics *

Service• Home visiting

• Head Start

• Preschool • Universal Pre-

K

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Child• Demographic• Low birth

weight• Age at

kindergarten• Disability

Family• TANF/SNAP/

Medicaid• Mother’s edu.• Teen mother• Maltreatment• Foster care

* Currently not available; will be included

Educational Outcomes• KRA-L score• 3rd grade reading proficiency• Attendance

Child Context• Demographic• Low birth weight• Age at kindergarten• Disability

Family Context• TANF/SNAP/ Medicaid• Mother’s education • Teen mother• Child maltreatment• Foster care

Service Context• Home visiting

• Head Start

• Preschool • Universal Pre-K

Mobility • School / Residential

INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM

CHILD system

Educational Outcomes• KRA-L score• 3rd grade reading proficiency• Attendance

School Context• School characteristics

Mobility • School

OLDA

Neighborhood context• Concentrated disadvantage• Immigrant concentration• Crime

NEO CANDO

Data Integrationby State Student ID

Data IntegrationBy Census tract

Data IntegrationBy ECIID

CHILD SYSTEM

Introduction

Key data system for this study Data helps inform our understanding of the

early childhood systemIndividuals and families interact with multiple

systems and services, so integrated data offers a more complete view of reality [“Big Data”]

Understanding of how systems work and how to better meet existing needs can be informed by integrated data

Service models emphasize long term and collective impact, so data needed across services and over time

ID6

ID5ID4

ID3

ID2ID1

• Abuse/neglect reports*

• Foster care*

• Home visiting*• Special needs child

care*• Early childhood

mental health• Universal pre-k*

• Attendance*• KRA-L*• Proficiency test*• Graduation test• Disability*

• Medicaid*• Food Stamp*• TANF*• Child care

voucher*

• Infant mortality• Elevated Blood Lead

• Teen births*• Low weight

birth*

CHILD SYSTEM

ConceptChildMedicalData

Birth

Cert.

PublicAssist

PublicSchool

Child

Welfare

Services

CommonID

Childhood Integrated

Longitudinal Data

(CHILD) System

*: Data for this project

CHILD SYSTEM

Structure

Geocode & Standardize

Updated IDS Register-includes ID#s, names, addresses, DOB, etc.

IDS Register-includes ID#s, names, addresses, DOB, etc. Outcomes

E.g. Kindergarten Readiness Scores among children in UPK program

ProfilesE.g. Birth characteristics & service used for children entering kindergarten

GeographicE.g. % LBW births receiving ongoing home visits by neighborhood

Time TrendsE.g. Total Children Served by birth cohort

Data files-Births, Home Visiting, DCFS, UPK,

KRA-L, Medicaid, etc.

Longitudinal Master Files for Each Data Source

REPORTS

Match New Records to IDS Register

NEIGHBORHOOD MEASURE

Principal Component Analysis

PovertyFemale-headedfamilies

African-America

n

Un-employ-

ment

Welfarerecipien

t

.9 .8 .8 .5 .7

N of ne ighborhoods=501 census tracts of Cuyahoga County; Amer ican Community Survey 2009

Concentrated

Disadvantage

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSISKRA-L

(N=9777) % Mean(SD) p1)

Child Context Male 50.8 15.2(6.9) 0.000 Female 49.2 16.7(6.8) Low birth weight (No) 88.0 16.1(6.9) 0.001 Low birth weight (Yes) 12.0 15.2(7.0) Race

White17.2 16.5

(7.1)0.000

2)

Others 4.6 16.7(7.0) Hispanic 9.9 13.7(6.8) African-American 68.3 16.1(6.8) Age at Kindergarten (Months) 64.7 (4.2)3) 0.144) 0.000 Without disability at kindergarten 96.9 16.1(6.8) 0.000 Disability at kindergarten 3.1 11.5(6.3)Family Context Born to teenage mother (No) 76.1 16.1(6.9) 0.000 Born to teenage mother (Yes) 23.9 15.5(6.6) Born to mother without HS degree 44.2 15.0(6.6) 0.000 Born to mother with HS degree 55.8 16.8(7.0) Months of <150% of poverty line from birth to kindergarten3)

43.2 (23.2)3) -.0.144) 0.000

Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (No)

86.2 16.1(6.9)0.000

Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (Yes)

13.8 14.9(6.6)

Foster care placement before age 5 (No) 94.2 16.3(6.8) 0.025 Foster care placement before age 5 (Yes) 5.8 15.3(6.6)KRA-L score 16.0(6.9)Note: 1) p form t-test, 2) p form One-way ANOVA, 3) Mean (SD), 4) Pearson-r and p

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSISKRA-L

(N=9777) % Mean(SD) p1)

Service Context Early intervention ever (No) 88.9 16.2 (6.8) 0.000 Early intervention ever (Yes) 11.1 13.8 (6.7) Number of ongoing home visiting over 12 times (No) 77.6 16.2 (6.9) 0.000 Number of ongoing home visiting over 12 times (Yes) 22.5 15.1 (6.7) Welcome home visiting ever (No) 68.9 15.8 (6.8) 0.000 Welcome home visiting ever (Yes) 31.1 16.4 (6.9) Headstart over 6 months (No) 90.6 15.8 (6.7) 0.000 Headstart over 6 months (Yes) 9.4 17.7 (6.7) CMSD Preschool over 120 days (No) 81.3 15.3 (6.7) 0.000 CMSD Preschool over 120 days (Yes) 18.7 18.7 (7.1) Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (No) 97.7 15.9 (6.9) 0.000 Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (Yes) 2.3 18.8 (6.6)Neighborhood context Concentrated disadvantages in 2009 by Census tract (M=0, SD=1) 0.8 (0.9)2) -.0.043) 0.000KRA-L score 16.0(6.9)Note: 1) p form t-test, 2) Mean (SD), 3) Pearson-r and p

OLS REGRESSIONKRA-L score (Dependent variable) B SE t p BIntercept -1.261 1.011 -1.25 .213 Child Context Gender (Female=1) 1.381 0.128 10.78 0.000 0.100 Low birth weight (Yes=1) -0.644 .0202 -3.19 .001 -0.030 Race: Reference (White and others, Yes=1) Hispanic (Yes=1) -2.515 .0245 -10.25 0.000 -0.109 African-American (Yes=1) 0.114 0.183 0.62 0.533 0.008 Age at Kindergarten (in months) 0.267 0.015 17.38 0.000 0.163 Disability at Kindergarten (Yes=1) -6.354 0.387 -16.41 0.000 -0.161Family Context Born to teenage mother (Yes=1) -0.194 0.185 -1.05 0.295 -0.012 Born to mother without HS degree (Yes=1) -1.136 0.141 8.04 0.000 -0.082 Months of <150% of poverty line from birth to kindergarten (months) -0.037 0.003 -11.89 0.000 -0.124 Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (Yes=1) -0.698 0.205 -3.40 0.001 -0.035 Foster care placement before Kindergarten (Yes=1) 0.714 0.306 2.34 0.020 0.024Service Context: Before kindergarten Early intervention ever (Yes=1) -1.935 0.221 -8.77 0.000 -0.088 Ongoing home visiting over 12 times (Yes=1) -0.365 0.160 -2.28 0.023 -0.022 Welcome home visiting ever (Yes=1) 0.917 0.163 5.62 0.000 0.062 Head Start over 6 months (Yes=1) 1.673 0.222 7.55 0.000 0.071 CMSD Preschool over 120 days (Yes=1) 4.003 0.171 23.35 0.000 0.227 Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (Yes=1) 1.919 0.376 5.10 0.000 0.047Neighborhood Context Concentrated disadvantages in 2009 by Census tract -0.239 0.085 -2.80 0.005 -0.031Model Fit: F(18, 9752)=105.04, p<.001, R2=16.24% | N=9777

KRA-L Band and poverty rate in Cleveland Metropolitan School

District, OH

Source: 1. Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) data

2. American Community Survey 2009 (www.census.gov)

Note: Kindergartners in the school years of 2008-2011 (N=9777)

IMPLICATIONSCollaboration with Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) and Early childhood agencies

oData SharingoUses

-Building profiles-Community collaborative planning-Risk factor reduction

Helpful to inform educational planning; especially schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students

Understand challenges for kindergarten readiness and 3rd grade guarantee

FUTURE PLAN

Data work

Check duplicated cases again*

Prepare for variables between K-3 rd grade*

Update missing data from Education Management Information System (EMIS; Expected: April, 2014)**

Adding more level-2 dataoNeighborhood variables from NEO CANDO*

o School characteristics from EMIS***

Dealing with missing dataoMissing imputation**

Note: *Completed, **Expected after April, 2014, ***Planned

FUTURE PLAN

Analysis

Extended modeloOutcome variable: 3rd grade reading proficiency

Use multi-level analyseso School-levelo Census tract-level

Geo-analysis / mobility analysiso Spatial auto-correlationo School or residential mobility

61

Thank you!

Contact Information: Robert L. Fischer, Ph.D. (fi [email protected])Resources

Center on Urban Poverty & Community Development: http://povertycenter.case.edu/

Ohio Education Research Center: http://oerc.osu.edu/ NEO CANDO: http://neocando.case.edu/

http://povertycenter.case.edu/

http://oerc.osu.edu/



http://neocando.case.edu/



RESILIENT CHILDREN PROJECT (RCP)

Funded in February 2011 by the Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky Social Innovation Fund

Expands the scope of two existing Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECMHC) projects

Provides comprehensive services to support young children’s social and emotional development

Increases the capacity of early care and education administrators and caregivers

Resilient Children Project

To what extent, if any, does the programmatic delivery of ECMHC increase the kindergarten readiness of the preschool children who receive the ECMHC?

To what extent, if any, do the adult professionals participating in the programmatic delivery of ECMHC increase their level of self effi cacy in the delivery of ECMCH?

RCP Research Questions

Year 1: Intervention Group: Early childhood

programs already participating in ECMHC Comparison Group: Early childhood

programs on a “wait list” for ECMHC services

Year 2: All sites receive ECMHC services Permits examination of effects of

implementation of ECMHC services in new sites

Comparison of new and long-term sites

RCP Evaluation Design

Linking preschool assessment data to demographics and kindergarten entry data

Measuring teacher stress and self effi cacy

New measurement strategies for teacher knowledge and skill

Clarification of key program components and their impact

Exploration of program climate

The Evolution of an Evaluation

Child, teacher, and staff turnover/mobility

Differences in program models

“Dosage” complications

Changes at the state

Linkage to kindergarten assessment data sets

Life Happens….

Linking program outcomes

Revising process monitoring tools

Enhancing early childhood data systems

Continued exploration of program climate

Where do families play into the equation?

What’s Next

Thank You

70

QUESTIONS FOR PANELISTS?

71

FEEDBACK ACTIVITY

72

Erin Joyce, Director, Battelle for Kids, and

co-chair, OERC Outreach Committee

OERC LEARNING NETWORK

73

June 18, 2014 — Half-Day Learning Session

Columbus Convention Center

Mid-September — Full-Day Learning Session

Columbus

OERC NEXT STEPS

THANK YOU!

[email protected] | oerc.osu.edu