Measuring Child Progress &

Family Outcomes Conference

Bethesda, MD

June 23, 2009

Elizabeth Laird

Program Manager, Data Quality Campaign

Nick Ortiz

Data Manager, Colorado Department of Education

Elizabeth Laird

Program Manager, Data Quality Campaign

7/21/20093

7/21/2009 4

Compliance Reporting

Accountability (rearview mirror view—what we did

well/not so well)

Continuous Improvement (looking out the front window)

7/21/2009 4

7/21/2009 5

Achieve, Inc. National Center for Educational Achievement

Alliance for Excellent Education National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems

Council of Chief State School Officers NGA Center for Best Practices

Education Commission of the States Schools Interoperability Framework Association

The Education Trust Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services

National Association of States Boards of Education State Educational Technology Directors

Association

National Association of System Heads State Higher Education Executive Officers

To view a list of DQC Endorsing Partners, visit www.DataQualityCampaign.org

7/21/2009 6

• To what degree does participation in early childhood programs increase

kindergarten readiness?

• What 8th grade achievement levels indicate that a student is well prepared

to succeed in challenging courses in high school?

• What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous

courses or performance on state tests) are the best predictors of students’

success in college or the workplace?

• What percentage of high school graduates go on to college and take

remedial courses?

• Which teacher preparation programs produce the graduates whose

students have the strongest academic growth?

1. Unique statewide student identifier

2. Student-level enrollment, demographic and program participation information

3. Ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure growth

4. Information on untested students

5. Teacher identifier system with ability to match teachers to students

6.Student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed

and grades earned

7. Student-level college readiness test scores

8. Student-level graduation and dropout data

9. Ability to match student records between the P-12 and postsecondary systems

10. State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability

DQC Progress: 2005-2008

2005 2008

7/21/2009 9

Sharing Student-Level Data Across State Agencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

Receive

Send

MOU

7/21/2009 10

Early Childhood State-Assigned Student ID

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Pre-K Birth-Five Services

Public

Private w/ Public $

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Enrollment Demographics Program Participation

Pre-K

Birth-Five Services

Early Childhood Data Collected

7/21/2009 12

7/21/2009 13

7/21/2009 14

7/21/2009 15

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund ($48.6b)

To tap into these funds, states must meet 4 Assurances:

1. Equalize Teacher Distribution

2. Enhance Quality & Alignment of Assessments

3. Support Struggling Schools

4. IMPROVE THE COLLECTION & USE OF LONGITUDINAL

DATA

7/21/2009 16

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems ($250m)

State Incentive Grants, i.e. “Race to the Top” ($4.35b)

IDEA Part B ($400m)

IDEA Part C ($500m)

Head Start ($1b)

Child Care and Development Block Grant ($2b)

Title I Funds ($13b)

7/21/2009 17

“Data gives us the roadmap to reform. It tells us

where we are, where we need to go, and who is

most at risk. Hopefully some day we can track

kids from pre-school to high-school and from

high school to college and college to career."

-U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

Elizabeth LairdData Quality Campaign Program Manager

Elizabeth@DataQualityCampaign.org

512-320-1817

www.DataQualityCampaign.org

7/21/2009 19

Nick Ortiz

Data Manager, Colorado Department of Education

Created in 1988 to serve

at-risk children

172,000 total children

served

State-funded through

School Finance

Formula

Currently authorized to

serve 20,160 children, or

27.8 % of CO 4-year-olds

Voluntary for school

districts

171 of 178 (96 %) school

districts in Colorado

participating

Emphasis on program

quality, professional

development, family

involvement, and

community partnerships

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Year

CO

4-y

ear-

old

s S

erv

ed

by C

PP

CPP is one of the programs participating

in Results Matter

User-friendly online data systems

System Components:

1. Authentic Assessment

2. Longitudinal Analysis

3. Family Outcomes

4. Program Quality

5. Professional Development

Includes social-emotional, language and literacy, physical, and

cognitive development

◦ addresses 21st Century Skills

Assessment systems utilized:

1) Work Sampling

2) Creative Curriculum

3) High/Scope COR

Assesses the “whole child”

Work Sampling 2007-08 Developmental Progress

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Personal &

Social

Language &

Literacy

Mathematical

Thinking

Scientific

Thinking

Social Studies The Arts Physical

Development &

Health

Developmental Domain

CP

P C

hild

ren

Sco

rin

g P

rofi

cie

nt

Fall Winter Spring

Creative Curriculum 2007-08 Developmental Progress

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Social &

Emotional

Physical Cognitive Language Emergent

Literacy

Developmental Domain

CP

P C

hild

ren

Sco

rin

g P

rofi

cie

nt

Fall Winter Spring

Develo

pm

enta

l Age

Chronological Age

The Impact of CPP on Children’s

Developmental Competence

Point of Entrance into CPP

At-Risk Children

At-Risk Children

Who Join CPPTypical Children

Achievement Gap

Adapted from

Ramey, 2003

Closing the

Achievement Gap

- CPP 4- & 5-yr-olds - Non-CPP 4- & 5-yr-olds - Fall Achievement Gap - Spring Achievement Gap

The Effect of CPP in One Year on Closing the Achievement Gap

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.8

Social/Emotional Physical Cognitive Language Emergent

Literacy

2.8

Fall ‘07 Spring ‘08 Fall ‘07 Spring ‘08 Fall ‘07 Spring ‘08 Fall ‘07 Spring ‘08Fall ‘07 Spring ‘08

N

CPP = ~4200

Non-CPP = ~1100

Avera

ge C

reative C

urr

iculu

m S

core

(1 =

Ste

p 1

, 2 =

Ste

p 2

, 3 =

Ste

p 3

)

Developmental Domain

CPP Fall

Non-CPPSpring

Non-CPP Fall

CPP Spring

*results from Creative Curriculum

Compared to their non-CPP peers, CPP children had:

growth in social-emotional development

growth in physical development

growth in cognitive development

growth in language development

growth in emergent literacy development

• 1.82 x faster

• 1.44 x faster

• 1.57 x faster

• 1.93 x faster

• 1.79 x faster

Goal: Increase communication with families

and engage them in their children’s education

Sample Survey Results:

◦ 85 % of families indicate that they usually or

routinely help their children learn and practice new skills

◦ 87 % of families indicate that their children’s preschool

program has done an excellent or good job at encouraging

them to be actively involved in their children’s education

◦ 85 % of families rated their children’s preschool program as

doing an excellent or good job of including them as full

partners in making decisions about their children’s education

2006-07 CBLA Assessment Results, M onte Vista C-8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ki nde r ga r t e n

Fi r st Gr a de

% Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Did not attend CPP Attended CPP

2007-08 DIBELS Scores, Lamar Re-2

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

% St udent s wit h

Inst ruct ional

R ecommendat ion

o f " B enchmark"

at M id - Y ear

Former CPP Students All Current Students

Based on the 89 %

of school districts

participating in

CPP who have CPP

“graduates” old

enough to take the

third grade CSAP.

2008 CO State-wide 3rd Grade Reading CSAP Results

by Funding Category

45

50

55

60

65

70

CPP Title 1 Free/Reduced Lunch

Funding Category

% S

tud

en

ts S

co

rin

g P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ad

van

ced

Reading

Writing

Math

Science

CSAP Outcomes for Children Funded by CPP in 1996-97 -

Denver Public Schools

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 8th 10th

Grade

Stu

de

nts

Sc

ori

ng

Pro

fic

ien

t o

r A

dv

an

ce

d

CPP District

Reading

Writing

Math

Science

5th Grade CSAP Outcomes for Multiple Cohorts of CPP Children -

Denver Public Schools

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Stu

de

nts

Sc

ori

ng

Pro

fic

ien

t o

r A

dv

an

ce

d

CPP District

Reading

Writing

Math

1) Figuring out how to link our system with K-12 system

Understanding key players

Degree of reconfiguration

2) Enabling Student ID’s

Individual agency ID vs. statewide ID

3) Accessing State ID Information

Confidentiality

Fragmentation

4) End-of-Year Enrollment Counts

Private-pay vs. CPP vs. Special Ed

Data systems can answer questions beyond those

required by OSEP/statute

Each state’s system is unique

Colorado’s Top 10 “Want to Know” Research

Questions◦ See handout

What challenges are you encountering with your

data system(s)?

What plans do you have in place to look at data

beyond compliance with OSEP/statute?

Measuring Child Progress & Family Outcomes Conference ▪ Bethesda, MD ▪ June 23, 2009