Incorporating EC Data into Your State’s Longitudinal Data System: Why Does it Matter to Part C and 619? Lori McReynolds, Kansas Tiffany Smith, Kansas Phil Koshkin, Maryland Brian Morrison, Maryland Amy Nicholas, DaSy Missy Cochenour, DaSy/SLDS State Support Team

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. Speaker: Missy

National Overview 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 Speaker: Missy

National Context Where are states trying to go? They are all in very different places: 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? 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) Speaker: Missy

Lessons Learned Governance matters! Data contributors need to be included early on in the conversation 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) Speaker: Missy

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? Speaker: Missy

SLDS Grant Program Evolution 2006 & 2007 Competitions 2009 Competition 2009 ARRA Competition 2012 Competition K12 K12 + ONE of the following: EC, Postsec, Workforce, OR Student-Teacher link K12 + ALL of the following: EC, Postsec, Workforce, AND Student-Teacher link ONE of the following: K12, EC, OR Postsec/ Workforce Speaker: Missy # of grants: Avg. award: 14 &13 $3.7M & 4.8M 27 $5.6M 20 $12.5M 24 $4.1M

Speaker: Missy FY06 Awards

Speaker: Missy FY06 FY07 Awards

Speaker: Missy FY06 FY07 FY09 Awards

Speaker: Missy FY06 FY07 FY09 FY09 ARRA Awards

Speaker: Missy FY06 FY07 FY09 FY09 ARRA FY12 Awards

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 Speaker: Missy

RTT-ELC Grant: ECIDS Projects Speaker: Missy FY06 FY07 FY09 FY09 ARRA FY12 Awards

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 Speaker: Missy

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 Speaker: Tiffany, Lori & Phil

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 Speaker: Tiffany, Lori & Phil

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? Speaker: Tiffany, Lori & Phil

Speaker: Amy 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. Speaker: Brian 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 Speaker: Brian 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? Speaker: Brian 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 General Ed Gr 3 47928 430.8 38.2 429.9 41.1 No Part C 46300 430.9 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 3377 371.5 117.3 367.1 111.2 617 349.2 135.9 350.9 129.8 Speaker: Brian *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.

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 White students Students with a history of Part C scored lower on average (Reading: 22.3 M diff; Math: 16.2 M diff) Speaker: Brian

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 Speaker: Lori and Tiffany

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 Speaker: Phil

Audience Poll Activity Speaker: Amy Source: Google Image

Wrap-Up: Comments and/or Questions Speaker: Missy Source: Google Image