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

• 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.

Session Objectives

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

• 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)

National Context

• 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)

Lessons Learned

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?

K12

SLDS Grant Program Evolution

2006 & 2007

Competitions

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

• 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 Context

Awards FY06 FY07 FY09 FY09 ARRA FY12

RTT-ELC Grant: ECIDS Projects

15

• 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

So what does this mean for Part C and 619?

16

• 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

How are Part C and 619 being involved in ECIDS initiatives?

17

• 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

What benefits have states identified with including Part C and 619 data in their ECIDS?

18

• 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?

What unique challenges have states experienced when integrating Part C and 619 data into their ECIDS?

19July 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

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.

*Special Education = eligibility of Speech/Language, Specific Learning Disability, Emotional Disturbance or Other Health Impairment

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

25

• 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

What hopes and dreams do states have for their integrated systems?

26

• 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

What hopes and dreams do states have for their integrated systems?

Audience Poll Activity

27

Source: Google Image

28

Wrap-Up: Comments and/or Questions

Source: Google Image