Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngster

1
STEPHEN J. BAGNATO, Ed.D Professor of Pediatrics
Psychology University of Pittsburgh/Childrens
Hospital steve.bagnato_at_chp.edu www.earlychildhoodp
artnerships.org
Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngsters
Early School Success
Authentic Outcomes for an Innovative Prevention
and Promotion Initiative 2005-2009
2
Funding for the Independent Program Evaluation
Research of the SPECS Team (1997-2009) by
Senior Program Director, Children, Youth, and
Families, Marge Petruska
3
What Does 30 Years of National Research Tell Us
about the Developmental Course of High-risk
Children Who Do Not Participate in Quality
Preschools?
4
Research-based Developmental Declines for
High-Risk Youngsters Not in Preschool
(Bryant Maxwell, 1997 Farran, 2000 Campbell
Ramey, 2002)
4
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
5
What Is Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania?
6
(No Transcript)
7
Distinctive Elements of PKC Programs

• School-community partnerships
• Integration of ECE system Pre-K Head Start
  Early Intervention and Child Care
• Collaborative school-community leadership
• Keystone Stars process standards
• Ongoing mentoring to improve program quality,
  teaching, and care
• Collaborative agreements with human service
  agencies
• PAELS curricular standards and indicators
• Ongoing program/progress monitoring and evaluation

8
Who Are the Children, Families, and Programs in
PKC?
9
Snapshot of Children, Families, Programs

• 21 PKC school-community partnerships across
  Pennsylvania
• 10,002 children, ages 3-6 years average age 4.3
  years
• Time-in-program average 11.7 mo. (4-28 mo.)
• Ethnic representation Caucasians,
  African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native
  Hawaiian, Alaska Native, American Indian, and
  Multi-ethnic categories
• 1113 teachers in 489 classrooms across PA

10
How Do the SPECS Authentic Assessment Program
Evaluation Research Methods Work in PKC?
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
SPECS for PKC Logic Model
TIME IN INTERVENTION
PARTNERSHIP MODEL
CHILDRENS EARLY LEARNING OUTCOMES
TEACHER BEHAVIOR
MENTORING
PROGRAM QUALITY
17
Core Mandates and Research Questions From
Stakeholders for SPECS

• No exclusion of vulnerable preschoolers from PKC
  for research purposesethical design
• Is participation in PKC associated with
  significant childrens gains in important
  functional competencies to improve their early
  school success? Did it work?)
• What programmatic elements of PKC are associated
  with childrens success? Why did it work?

18
What Did the SPECS Research Show About PKC?
19
FAST FACTS forOverall PKC Research Outcomes

• Vulnerable young children beat the odds and
  succeeded.
• Young high-risk children showed accelerated early
  learning progress.
• Young children with delays and challenging
  behaviors improved equally.
• Young children learned critical functional
  competencies for early school success and matched
  or exceeded local historical and state and
  national norms.
• Individualized and inclusive programs helped
  children to succeed.
• Mentored programs improved program quality and
  teaching which promoted child success.
• Standards for children and professional practices
  served to focus and guide teaching and expected
  outcomes for teachers.
• School-community collaborations and leadership
  were often innovative, effective, and
  value-added.

20

OUTCOME 1 High-Risk Preschool Children Beat
the Odds and Succeeded in Pre-K Counts by Gaining
Critical Early Learning Competencies.
21
Functional Classifications of Children At PKC
Entry
21
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
22
Functional Classifications of Children at PKC Exit
22
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
23
Comparison of US National Delay/Disability
Incidence Rates to PKC Rates (Fugiura Yamaki,
2005)
33
14
2
24
Gains of PKC Children Compared to Indicators in
National ECE ResearchMean effect size .46 or
6.8 standard score units
24
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
25
Reductions in of At-Risk Children with Social
Behavior Problems After PKC
25
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
26

OUTCOME 2 Improved Program Quality Promoted
Childrens Early School Success
27
Comparative Child Progress in High (3-4) vs Low
Quality (1-2) PKC Programs
27
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
28
Randomized Study of Improvement in PKC Programs
Quality and Instructional Practices Over 9 months
28
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
29

OUTCOME 3 Ongoing Mentoring Improved Teaching
and Program Quality
30
Did Keystone Stars Coaching Improve Teaching and
Program Quality?

• Variety of coaching modes was partly responsible
  for improvements in quality which promoted
  childrens language and math competencies at
  K-transition

30
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
31
Frequency of Effective Coaching Modes in
Keystone Stars
31
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
32

OUTCOME 4 Children in PKC Programs Beat Local
and National Norms to Achieve Success at
Kindergarten Transition
33
Attainment of PAELS Indicators at K Transition
SPECIFIC PAELS COMPETENCY ATTAINED
Demonstrate initiative and curiosity 85
Develop and expand listening and understanding skills 80
Communicate ideas, experiences and feeling for a variety of purposes 87
Comprehends information from written and oral stories and texts 78
Develop increasing understanding of letter knowledge 76
Learn about numbers, numerical representation, and simple numerical operations 73
Develop self-regulation 81
34
Comparative Early Learning Competencies of PKC
Children with National Norms at K-Transition
34
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
35
Reductions in Special Education Placement Rates
for PKC Children Compared to Historical School
District Rates
35
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
36

OUTCOME 5 Innovative School-Community
Partnership Models Nurtured Child and Program
Success
37
Comparison of K-Transition Skills of PKC Children
in Programs with Low vs High Adherence to OCDEL
Partnership Elements
37
2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS
Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh
6/14/2014
38

• Simply,
• Prevention Works!
• Inclusion Works!
• Pre-K Counts In Pennsylvania WORKS!

39
What Are the Lessons Learned from PKC for
Future Policies, Professional Practices, and
Research in PA and the US?
40
Lessons Learned from PKC Research

• Specific features of PKC seem to make a
  difference.
• Future research is vital to follow PKC children
  into grades K-5 and prove sustainability.
• A mentoring model and rigorous documentation are
  needed to enhance Keystone Stars.
• SPECS for PKC research can help prospective
  programs make strategic decisions.
• PKC partnerships must embrace and include all
  types of community ECI partners.
• Inclusion works and benefits all children.

41
Lessons Learned from PKC Research

• Maximize Early Head Start and Head Start as a key
  part of the foundation for PKC.
• Response-to-intervention is a key to effective
  and integrated service delivery in PKC.
• Authentic Assessment is the most effective form
  of measurement for PKC purposes.
• The best measurement methods for both children
  and contexts must be re-examined for use in the
  PKC system.
• Commitment to standards underlies the success of
  PKC.

42
The MisMeasure of Man (Stephen J. Gould, 1981)

• There arefewer injustices deeper than the
  denial of an opportunity to strive or ever hope
  by a limit imposed from without, but falsely
  identified as lying within (p.28)