1. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 1 Pre-K in Pennsylvaniafor Youngster’s Early School Success: Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania for Youngster’s Early School Success: Authentic Outcomes for an Innovative Prevention and Promotion Initiative [2005-2009] STEPHEN J. BAGNATO, Ed.D Professor of Pediatrics & Psychology University of Pittsburgh/Children’s Hospital steve.bagnato@chp.eduwww.earlychildhoodpartnerships.org

2. 11/29/2015 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

3. 11/29/2015 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?

4. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 4 4 11/29/2015 Research-based Developmental Declines for High- Risk Youngsters Not in Preschool (Bryant & Maxwell, 1997; Farran, 2000; Campbell & Ramey, 2002)

5. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 5 What Is Pre-K Counts in Pennsylvania?

6. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 6

7. 11/29/2015 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

8. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 8 Who Are the Children, Families, and Programs in PKC?

9. 11/29/2015 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

10. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 10 How Do the SPECS Authentic Assessment & Program Evaluation Research Methods Work in PKC?

11. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 11

12. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 12

13. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 13

14. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 14

15. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 15

16. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 16 CHILDREN’S EARLY LEARNING OUTCOMES PARTNERSHIPMODEL TIME IN INTERVENTION PROGRAMQUALITY MENTORING TEACHERBEHAVIOR SPECS for PKC Logic Model

17. 11/29/2015 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?]

18. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 18 What Did the SPECS Research Show About PKC?

19. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 19 FAST FACTS for Overall 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  School-community collaborations and leadership were often innovative, effective, and value-added.

20. 11/29/2015 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.

21. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 21 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 21 11/29/2015 Functional Classifications of Children At PKC Entry

22. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 22 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 22 11/29/2015 Functional Classifications of Children at PKC Exit

23. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 23 33 14 2 Comparison of US National Delay/Disability Incidence Rates to PKC Rates (Fugiura & Yamaki, 2005)

24. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 24 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 24 11/29/2015 Gains of PKC Children Compared to Indicators in National ECE Research [Mean effect size=.46 or 6.8 standard score units]

25. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 25 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 25 11/29/2015 Reductions in % of At-Risk Children with Social Behavior Problems After PKC

26. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 26  OUTCOME 2: Improved Program Quality Promoted Children’s Early School Success

27. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 27 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 27 11/29/2015 Comparative Child Progress in High (3-4) vs Low Quality (1-2) PKC Programs

28. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 28 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 28 11/29/2015 Randomized Study of Improvement in PKC Program’s Quality and Instructional Practices Over 9 months

29. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 29  OUTCOME 3: Ongoing Mentoring Improved Teaching and Program Quality

30. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 30 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 30 11/29/2015 Did Keystone Stars Coaching Improve Teaching and Program Quality?  Variety of coaching modes was partly responsible for improvements in quality which promoted children’s language and math competencies at K- transition

31. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 31 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 31 11/29/2015 Frequency of Effective Coaching Modes in Keystone Stars

32. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 32  OUTCOME 4: Children in PKC Programs Beat Local and National Norms to Achieve Success at Kindergarten Transition

33. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 33 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 Attainment of PAELS Indicators at K Transition

34. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 34 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 34 11/29/2015 Comparative Early Learning Competencies of PKC Children with National Norms at K-Transition

35. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 35 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 35 11/29/2015 Reductions in Special Education Placement Rates for PKC Children Compared to Historical School District Rates

36. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 36  OUTCOME 5: Innovative School- Community Partnership Models Nurtured Child and Program Success

37. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 37 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 37 11/29/2015 Comparison of K-Transition Skills of PKC Children in Programs with Low vs High Adherence to OCDEL Partnership Elements

38. 11/29/2015 2009 Early Childhood Partnership, SPECS Evaluation Team, University of Pittsburgh 38 Simply, Prevention Works! Prevention Works! Inclusion Works! Inclusion Works! Pre-K Counts In Pennsylvania WORKS! Pre-K Counts In Pennsylvania WORKS!

39. 11/29/2015 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?

40. 11/29/2015 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.

41. 11/29/2015 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.

42. 11/29/2015 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)