1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Speaker: Missy
FY06
Awards

9. Speaker: Missy
FY06
FY07
Awards

10. Speaker: Missy
FY06
FY07
FY09
Awards

11. Speaker: Missy
FY06
FY07
FY09
FY09 ARRA
Awards

12. Speaker: Missy
FY06
FY07
FY09
FY09 ARRA
FY12
Awards

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Speaker: Amy
July 2013

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Audience Poll Activity
Speaker: Amy
Source: Google Image

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