1 / 42

Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngster’s Early School Success:

STEPHEN J. BAGNATO, Ed.D Professor of Pediatrics & Psychology University of Pittsburgh/Children’s Hospital steve.bagnato@chp.edu www.earlychildhoodpartnerships.org. Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngster’s Early School Success:.

daria-morrow
Download Presentation

Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngster’s Early School Success:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STEPHEN J. BAGNATO, Ed.D Professor of Pediatrics & Psychology University of Pittsburgh/Children’s Hospital steve.bagnato@chp.edu www.earlychildhoodpartnerships.org Pre-K Countsin Pennsylvaniafor Youngster’s Early School Success: Authentic Outcomes for an Innovative Prevention and Promotion Initiative [2005-2009] 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  2. Funding for the Independent Program Evaluation Research of the SPECS Team (1997-2009) by: Senior Program Director, Children, Youth, and Families, Marge Petruska 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  5. What Is Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  6. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  8. Who Are the Children, Families, and Programs in PKC? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  10. How Do the SPECS Authentic Assessment & Program Evaluation Research Methods Work in PKC? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  11. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  12. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  13. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  14. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  15. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  16. SPECS for PKC Logic Model TIME IN INTERVENTION PARTNERSHIP MODEL CHILDREN’S EARLY LEARNING OUTCOMES TEACHER BEHAVIOR MENTORING PROGRAM QUALITY 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  17. “Core Mandates and Research Questions From Stakeholders for SPECS • No exclusion of vulnerable preschoolers from PKC for research purposes—ethical design • Is participation in PKC associated with significant children’s gains in important functional competencies to improve their early school success? [Did it work?) • What programmatic elements of PKC are associated with children’s success? [Why did it work?] 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  18. What Did the SPECS Research Show About PKC? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  20. OUTCOME 1: High-Risk Preschool Children Beat the Odds and Succeeded in Pre-K Counts by Gaining Critical Early Learning Competencies. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  21. Functional Classifications of Children At PKC Entry 21 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  22. Functional Classifications of Children at PKC Exit 22 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  23. Comparison of US National Delay/Disability Incidence Rates to PKC Rates (Fugiura & Yamaki, 2005) 33 14 2 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  24. Gains of PKC Children Compared to Indicators in National ECE Research[Mean effect size= .46 or 6.8 standard score units] 24 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  25. Reductions in % of At-Risk Children with Social Behavior Problems After PKC 25 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  26. OUTCOME 2: Improved Program Quality Promoted Children’s Early School Success 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  28. Randomized Study of Improvement in PKC Program’s Quality and Instructional Practices Over 9 months 28 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  29. OUTCOME 3: Ongoing Mentoring Improved Teaching and Program Quality 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  30. Variety of coaching modes was partly responsible for improvements in quality which promoted children’s language and math competencies at K-transition Did Keystone Stars Coaching Improve Teaching and Program Quality? 30 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  31. Frequency of Effective Coaching Modes in Keystone Stars 31 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  32. OUTCOME 4: Children in PKC Programs Beat Local and National Norms to Achieve Success at Kindergarten Transition 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  33. Attainment of PAELS Indicators at K Transition 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  36. OUTCOME 5: Innovative School-Community Partnership Models Nurtured Child and Program Success 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11/14/2014

  38. Simply, • Prevention Works! • Inclusion Works! • Pre-K Counts In Pennsylvania WORKS! 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  39. What Are the “Lessons Learned” from PKC for Future Policies, Professional Practices, and Research in PA and the US? 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  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. 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

  42. The MisMeasure of Man (Stephen J. Gould, 1981) “There are…fewer 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) 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh

More Related