Demonstrating the Links between Research, Practice & Policy in Early Childhood Mental Health June...

Post on 25-Dec-2015

217 views 0 download

Tags:

Transcript of Demonstrating the Links between Research, Practice & Policy in Early Childhood Mental Health June...

Demonstrating the Linksbetween

Research, Practice & Policyin Early Childhood Mental Health

Demonstrating the Linksbetween

Research, Practice & Policyin Early Childhood Mental Health

June 16, 2009NAEYC Office of Applied Research

18th National Institute for Early Childhood Professional DevelopmentCharlotte, North Carolina

June 16, 2009NAEYC Office of Applied Research

18th National Institute for Early Childhood Professional DevelopmentCharlotte, North Carolina

2

“Expulsion” from Preschool?“Expulsion” from Preschool?

• The Expulsion Question

– Over past 12 months

– Required terminating

participation in program

– Behavioral problem

– No transition to more

appropriate setting

• The Expulsion Question

– Over past 12 months

– Required terminating

participation in program

– Behavioral problem

– No transition to more

appropriate setting

3

PreK Expulsion Results: NationPreK Expulsion Results: Nation

• 10.4% of PreK teachers expelled at least 1 child

in past year due to behavior problems

• 1 child (78%); 2 children (15%);

3 children (6%); 4 children (1%)

• PreK Expulsion Rate = 6.7 / 1,000

• K-12 Expulsion Rate = 2.1 / 1,000

• 10.4% of PreK teachers expelled at least 1 child

in past year due to behavior problems

• 1 child (78%); 2 children (15%);

3 children (6%); 4 children (1%)

• PreK Expulsion Rate = 6.7 / 1,000

• K-12 Expulsion Rate = 2.1 / 1,000

4

Child Care Expulsion RatesChild Care Expulsion Rates• Child Rates

– Detroit, MI (Grannan et al., 1999; n=127; 28%)

• Rate = 28/1,000

– Massachusetts (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; n=119; 64%)

• Rate = 27/1,000 (39% Classes)

– Massachusetts (MA DOE, 2003; n=764; ?%)

• Rate = 2% expelled; 1% “suggested,” 1% transferred

– Colorado (Hoover, 2006; n=1,075; 17%)

• Rate = 10/1,000

• Center/Classroom Rates

– Chicago, IL (Cutler & Gilkerson, 2002; n=195 I/T; 38%)

• Rate = 42% of Centers

– Alaska (Alaska CCPO, 2005; n=493; 71%)

• Rate = 35% Centers

• Child Rates

– Detroit, MI (Grannan et al., 1999; n=127; 28%)

• Rate = 28/1,000

– Massachusetts (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; n=119; 64%)

• Rate = 27/1,000 (39% Classes)

– Massachusetts (MA DOE, 2003; n=764; ?%)

• Rate = 2% expelled; 1% “suggested,” 1% transferred

– Colorado (Hoover, 2006; n=1,075; 17%)

• Rate = 10/1,000

• Center/Classroom Rates

– Chicago, IL (Cutler & Gilkerson, 2002; n=195 I/T; 38%)

• Rate = 42% of Centers

– Alaska (Alaska CCPO, 2005; n=493; 71%)

• Rate = 35% Centers

5

Expulsion Rates (per 1,000)Expulsion Rates (per 1,000)

Gilliam, WS & Shahar, G (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants and Young Children, 19, 228-245. Gilliam, WS (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion Rates in state

prekindergarten programs. FCD Policy Brief, Series No. 3. Available: www.fcd-us.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=464280

6

State PreK Expulsion RatesState PreK Expulsion Rates

Classroom characteristics may contribute to (or fail to help)

challenging behaviors.

Classroom characteristics may contribute to (or fail to help)

challenging behaviors.

7

8

Length of School Day Predicts Expulsion

Length of School Day Predicts Expulsion

9.0%

13.2%

7.1%

Half-Day School-Day Extended-Day

Length of Day

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g9.0%

13.2%

7.1%

Half-Day School-Day Extended-Day

Length of Day

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

9

High Child-Teacher Ratio Predicts Expulsion

High Child-Teacher Ratio Predicts Expulsion

7.7%

10.5%

12.7%

9.8%

Under 8 8 to 9 10 to 11 12 and Up

Number of Children Per Teacher

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

7.7%

10.5%

12.7%

9.8%

Under 8 8 to 9 10 to 11 12 and Up

Number of Children Per Teacher

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

10

Group Size & Teacher Stress Predict Expulsion (Child Care)

Group Size & Teacher Stress Predict Expulsion (Child Care)

46.9% 50.0%

12.0%

45.7%

High Size Low Stress

Low Size High Stress

High Size High Stress

Low Size Low Stress

Class Size & Teacher Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g 46.9% 50.0%

12.0%

45.7%

High Size Low Stress

Low Size High Stress

High Size High Stress

Low Size Low Stress

Class Size & Teacher Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

Worksheets, Flashcards & Rate of ExpulsionWorksheets, Flashcards & Rate of Expulsion

11

Dramatic Play Frequency & Rate of ExpulsionDramatic Play Frequency & Rate of Expulsion

12

13

Teacher depression & job stressalso predict expulsion.

Teacher depression & job stressalso predict expulsion.

14

Teacher Job Stress Predicts ExpulsionTeacher Job Stress Predicts Expulsion

4.9%

9.3%

14.3%

Low Stress Average Stress High Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

4.9%

9.3%

14.3%

Low Stress Average Stress High Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

Increased interest in early childhood

mental health consultation

Increased interest in early childhood

mental health consultation

15

16

Behavioral Consultation Predicts Decreased Expulsion

Behavioral Consultation Predicts Decreased Expulsion

Gilliam, WS (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten programs. FCD Policy Brief, Series No. 3.

17

Early Childhood Consultation PartnershipEarly Childhood Consultation Partnership

• Created in 2002 – Combination of State (DCF/SDE) and Private (CHDI) Funds

• Admin -Advanced Behavioral Health

• Available to Child Care and ECE Programs Serving 0- to 5-Year Olds

• Services Requested by Child Care Directors (Teachers & Parents)

• Created in 2002 – Combination of State (DCF/SDE) and Private (CHDI) Funds

• Admin -Advanced Behavioral Health

• Available to Child Care and ECE Programs Serving 0- to 5-Year Olds

• Services Requested by Child Care Directors (Teachers & Parents)

18

ECCP ResultsECCP Results

(F = 10.68**; d = 0.57) (F = 10.62**; d = 0.51)

19

20

Oppositionality % Significantly ImpairedOppositionality % Significantly Impaired

21

22

Work Supported by:Work Supported by:

• Child Health and Development Institute of

Connecticut (CHDI)

• Connecticut Department of Children & Families

• Connecticut Department of Education

• Foundation for Child Development

• Pew Charitable Trusts

National Institute for Early Education Research

• A.L. Mailman Family Foundation

• Schott Foundation for Public Education

• Child Health and Development Institute of

Connecticut (CHDI)

• Connecticut Department of Children & Families

• Connecticut Department of Education

• Foundation for Child Development

• Pew Charitable Trusts

National Institute for Early Education Research

• A.L. Mailman Family Foundation

• Schott Foundation for Public Education

For copies of complete reports and policy briefsFor copies of complete reports and policy briefs

Please visit: ziglercenter.yale.eduPlease visit: ziglercenter.yale.edu

23

24

Walter S. Gilliam, PhDDirector,The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study CenterYale University School of Medicine230 South Frontage RoadPO Box 207900New Haven, CT 06520-7900

Phone: 203-785-3384Email: walter.gilliam@yale.edu

ziglercenter.yale.edu

Walter S. Gilliam, PhDDirector,The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study CenterYale University School of Medicine230 South Frontage RoadPO Box 207900New Haven, CT 06520-7900

Phone: 203-785-3384Email: walter.gilliam@yale.edu

ziglercenter.yale.edu