PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of...

Build knowledge. Gain expertise. Share best practices.SPEDCHAT WEBINAR SERIES

PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK can Have a Profound Impact on Students With Disabilities

www.accelify.com

SPEDCHAT WEBINAR SERIES

Tweet about the webinar using #SpedChatWeband follow us on social to find out about

future webinars, events, news, and contests.

@AccelifyLLC

We’re Social!

facebook.com/Accelify linkedin.com/company/accelify-llc

www.facebook.com/Accelify

www.twitter.com/accelifyllc

www.linkedin.com/company/accelify-llc


The Honorable Dr. Robert Pasternack

Dr. Pasternack is the Chief Education Officer at Accelify and has over 40 years of experience in public education, including a term as U.S Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. During his tenure, Dr. Pasternack led the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, and helped with the implementation of NCLB. Dr. Pasternack has been a long-time proponent of policy reforms that will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities from birth through adulthood.


History of IDEA


HISTORY OF IDEA

1967 – Almost 200,000 individuals with significant disabilities were in state institutions, many of which provided only minimal food, clothing, and shelter.

1970 – U.S. schools educated only 1 in 5 of the nation’s children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding those who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed or intellectually disabled.

November 1975 - Congress passes the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142.

1967 1970 1975


HISTORY OF IDEA

Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142

Four Purposes:

• To assure that all children with disabilities have available to them…a free and an appropriate education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs;

• To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents….are protected;• To assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities;

• To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities.


HISTORY OF IDEA

Today

57 percent of students with disabilities are in general education classrooms for 80 percent or more of the day.

350,000 infants and toddlers receive early intervention.

6.7 million children and youth receive special education and related services.

Source: www.IDEAdata.org


Percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B,

by disability category: SY 2011-12

Intellectual Disabilities

7.4%

Hearing Impairments

1.2%

Speech or Language Impairments

18.5%

Visual Impairments , 0.4%

Emotional Disturbance

, 6.4%Orthopedic

Impairments , 0.9%

Other Health Impairments

12.7%

Specific Learning Disabilities

40.7%

Deaf-Blindness 0.0%

Multiple Disabilities 2.2%

Autism 7.0%

Traumatic Brain Injury , 0.4%

Developmental Delay 2.0%


POLICY


POLICYSection 619 of IDEA Part B

• Defines the preschool program for children with disabilities

• Authorizes grants to states for preschool children with special needs, ages 3-5 (Sec. 611 funds state grants for students ages 6-21)

• Guarantees FAPE to children age 3-5

• Entitles them to Special Education and Related Services in the LRE if identified as having condition named in Part B of IDEA


POLICY

Funding

• Funding formulas nearly identical, but Congress allocates total funds for 611/619 separately

• Districts use a combination of 611 and 619 funding to cover EC special education costs

• Must make FAPE available to all 3-5 year olds with disabilities in the state to be eligible

$1,677

$474

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

Section 611 vs. Section 619 Avg. Per Pupil Spending

611 (Ages 6-21) 619 (Ages 3-5)


Literacy and ECE


“Reading is the foundation for all learning – and that foundation is built early,

by exposing young children to the love of books and the simple rules of language”


LITERACY AND ECE

Before entering school, children should…

Know their letters Begin to know the sounds those letters make Learn what the written word looks like Be excited about reading, because they have seen others do it


LITERACY AND ECE

Early Literacy and the Link to Future Success

Which of the below do you think is the most accurate predictor of 9th grade reading scores?

• The amount of funding the child’s school receives• A child’s vocabulary and knowledge of the alphabet

in kindergarten • A child’s economic status


LITERACY AND ECE

Early Literacy and the Achievement Gap

• To close the achievement gap in our schools, we must close the early childhood education gap in our society

• The federal government provides states with considerable funds for childcare –but there is little emphasis in the law on the educational quality of childcare. That must change


LITERACY AND ECE

Early Literacy and Policy

• Anyone serious about educational reform must be serious about early childhood education

• If we want all our children reading by the third grade, then all our children must be ready to learn on their first day of school

• States must provide PreK programs with guidelines on language development, pre-reading and literacy skills

• States must have a plan to expand the training of child care and pre-school teachers in their state


IDEA Section 619

What does the data tell us?


IDEA 619 – What does the data tell us?

Early Literacy and Policy

• In the fall of 2005, 704,087 children age 3-5 were being served through Section 619 (8% of total age group)(Source: www.ideadata.org)

• In 2005-2006, $380 million dollars was awarded to the states and territories to help with the cost of the program



Year Total served under Part B ages 3-5

In the 50 states, DC, BIE schools, PR, and the four

outlying areas

Resident populationages 3-5

in the 50 states and DC

In the 50 states, DC, and BIE schools

% of resident population served under Part B

ages 3-5 in the 50 states, DC, and BIE

schools

2003 680,142 670,750 11,501,168 5.8

2004 701,949 693,245 11,714,436 5.9

2005 704,087 698,938 11,866,471 5.9

2006 714,384 706,635 11,987,484 5.9

2007 709,136 698,931 11,975,329 5.8

2008 709,004 700,296 12,037,364 5.8

2009 731,832 716,569 12,129,397 5.9

2010 735,245 720,740 12,255,590 5.9

2011 745,954 730,558 12,312,888 5.9

2012 750,131 736,195 12,203,162 6.0



• In 2012, 750,131 children ages 3-5 were served under IDEA Part B

• Of these children, 736,195 were in the states for which data were available, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools

• Represents 6% of the population ages 3 through 5

• Between 2003 and 2012, the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA Part B, increased from 680,142 to 750,131

• Additional 69,989 children represents a 10.3% increase in the number of children served


IDEA Part B

Disability Categories and Demographics


IDEA Part B – Disability Categories and Demographics

Percentage of children ages 3-5 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category (Fall 2012)

• Speech or language impairments (44.7%)

• Developmental Delay (37.2%)

• Autism (7.8%)

• Other disabilities combined (10.3%)

45%

37%

8%

10%

Speech or language impairments

Developmental delay

Autism

Other disabilities combined


DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY

A delay or disorder in sensory, physical, mental, or

social/emotional development or delays in comparison to peers, as

documented by diagnostic testing.



Developmental Delay

• IDEA allows states to:

• Use this eligibility category up to age 9

• Establish their own criteria such as developmental inventories and/or informed clinical opinion

*IDEA - Section 1402: Young children who may later be identified as Learning Disabled are frequently included in this category.



Other Disabilities Combined Includes:

• Deaf-Blindness (<0.05%)

• ED (0.4%)

• Hearing Impairments (1.3%)

• Intellectual Disabilities (2.0%)

• Multiple Disabilities (1.1%)

• Orthopedic Impairments (0.9%)

• OHI (2.9%)

• SLD (1.2%)

• TBI (0.1%)

• Visual Impairments (0.4%)



Race/ethnicityChild count in 49 states, DC, and

BIE schools

Resident population ages 3 through 5 in 49

states and DCRisk index (%)

Risk index for all other racial/ethnic groups

combined (%)Risk ratio

American Indian or Alaska Native

8,577 104,993 8.2 6.0 1.4

Asian 23,082 563,266 4.1 6.1 0.7

Black or African American 102,677 1,689,886 6.1 6.0 1.0

Hispanic/Latino 163,970 3,110,463 5.3 6.3 0.8

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

2,112 24,044 8.8 6.0 1.5

White 399,008 6,168,348 6.5 5.6 1.2

Two or more races 36,770 542,162 6.8 6.0 1.1

Total 6,736,195 12,203,162 6.0 † †

*2012 Data

Risk Index by Race and Ethnicity for Children Ages 3-5



Risk Index by Race and Ethnicity for Children Ages 3-5

Risk Ratio % Race Likelihood to Served Under Part B

Risk Ratio above 1.0 • American Indian or Alaska Native

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

• White children

• Multiple races

More likely than all other racial/ethnic groups combined

Risk Ratio of 1.0 • Black or African American As likely as all other racial/ethnicgroups combined

Risk Ratio below 1.0 • Asian and Hispanic/Latino Less likely than all other racial/ethnicgroups combined



Children Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA Part B by Educational Environment

• Regular early childhood program at least 10 hrs/week:

• Majority in program (37.2%)

• Majority elsewhere (17.4%)

• Regular early childhood program less than 10 hrs/week:

• Majority in program (5.3%)

• Majority elsewhere (5.1%)

• Separate Class (23.6%)

• Service provider location or some other location (6.5%)

• Other environments (4.9%)

37%

17%5%

5%

24%

7%5%

At least 10 hrs/wk - majority At least than 10 hrs/wk - elsewhere

Less than 10 hrs/wk - majority Less than 10 hrs/wk - elsewhere

Separate class Service provider location other

Other environments



Children Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA Part B by Educational Environment

• Regular early childhood program for some amount of time (65%)

• Separate Class (23.6%)

• Service provider location or some other location (6.5%)

• Other environments (4.9%)

• Separate school

• Residential facility

• Home

65%

24%

6%5%

Regular early childhood programSeparate classService provider location otherOther environments


ESSA


ESSA

Summary

• Standards

• Assessments

• Accountability Systems

• Public Reporting

• Teachers and Leaders

• Funding


ESSA

Fiscal Requirements

• Supplement, not supplant (Sec. 1118)

• LEAs must demonstrate their methodology to allocate state and local funds to schools


ESSA

Title II

Professional development (teachers, principals, school leaders)

Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN)

• Comprehensive birth through grade 12 literacy program

• Targets high-needs schools with greater percentage of children reading/writing below grade level

• All sections address SWDs

21st Century Community Learning Centers, charter, and magnet school programs

Family engagement program

• Statewide grants to carry out parent education and family engagement

• Training and technical assistance to states, LEAs, schools, and organizations


ESSA

PreK Funding$250 million Preschool Development Grant program focused on children from low-income or vulnerable backgrounds

• Coordinate existing learning programs• Improve preschool program• Expand access• Strengthen transition to elementary school


PROGRAM MODELS


Program Models

Pay for Success Initiative (in ESSA): a performance-based grant, contract, or cooperative agreement awarded by a public entity in which a commitment is made to pay for improved outcomes that result in social benefit and direct cost savings or cost avoidance to the public sector.


Program Models

Pay for Success Initiative (in ESSA)

Such an initiative shall include:

• A feasibility study on the initiative describing how the proposed intervention is based on evidence of effectiveness;

• A rigorous, third-party evaluation that uses experimental or quasi-experimental design or other research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences to determine whether the initiative has met its proposed outcomes;

• A requirement that payments are made to the recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement only when agreed upon outcomes are achieved, except that the entity may make payments to the third party conducting the evaluation described in subparagraph


Program Models


Specific interventions

“are not spelled out… allowing providers the flexibility to adopt whatever strategies they determine will be most effective,”

noting also that, in some cases, “private investment provides upfront financing, taking on the risk that the intervention won’t

succeed and recovering the investment if it does.”


Program Models


Also found in:

• Title I, Part D, (“Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk”)

• In Title IV, Part A, (“Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants,” section 4108, “Activities to Support Safe and Healthy Students”) of the new bill.


Program Models


• Not a mandate but an allowable use option that state and LEAs can choose to incorporate into how they structure funding decisions — using outcomes as the driver of payment allocation

• Is just one instrument in the education system's general toolkit, aimed at helping children.

• Expands funding for high-quality programs that actually deliver results, leading to greater benefits for students


Program Models

Pay for Success – Social Impact Bonds

• In this “results-based financing” model, if the preschool program does not result in increased school readiness and decreased use of special education services, the Salt Lake City County gets its money back from the United Way and there is no obligation on the part of United Way to repay Goldman Sachs and the Pritzker Foundation.

Expansion

• At the local level, Fresno, Calif., New York City, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and Salt Lake City have each launched SIB programs within the past three years.

• Additionally, Santa Barbara, Calif., and Philadelphia have each commissioned studies on the impacts of potential SIB programs


Program Models

Pay for Success Model in Granite School District, Utah

• The Salt Lake County, Utah, High-Quality Preschool Program sought to increase the number of low-income children in the county who started kindergarten on track and ready to learn.

• Based on predictive assessments, the county estimated that, absent of some special effort, 110 of the 600 low-income children in its study cohort would need special education in kindergarten.

• Their pilot, funded through an outcome-focused public-private investment mechanism called Pay for Success (PFS), determined to change those numbers, and it did.

• After a year of the PFS-sponsored program, only one – yes, one – child was found to need special education.

• The win for the children was also a win for the taxpayers. The county says it has saved $281,000 in education expenses; presumably those savings will rise if children stay in mainstream classes over the long run.


Pay for Success Model in Granite, Utah

• 3-4 year old children, most affected by poverty

• 128 languages, none proficient in English

• 3 hrs/day, 4 day/wk – Half day

• Well-informed teachers and teachers assistants

• $1,500 per child/year

• Full inclusion model – all children included in data

Program Models


Social Impact Bonds

At the beginning of their 9th year:

• 12-hour a week intervention

• 34,000 children in study; replicated in YMCAs, charter schools, daycares, Head Start

• 180 languages in study, none proficient English

• Lowered SPED referral rate from 30% to 1%

• Cost savings over $3 million

• Sustained gains with no support post PreK

• Received over $8 million to extend study

Program Models


Social Impact Bonds

Program Funding:

• Focus on evidence of effectiveness and sustained gains

• $7 million loan from Goldman Sachs and the Pritzker Foundation to the Granite School District to replicate and expand model

• Added 600 children, Sept. 1, 2013



Program Models


Social Impact Bonds

Compare Costs to Benefits

• Abecedarian Project: $39,672/child

• Chicago CPC: $5372/child, half day

• Perry Preschool: $17,526/child

• Tulsa, OK: $4403/child, half day

• Tulsa, OK: $8803/child, full day

Program Models

Granite Study$1500/child, 3-hr day


Program Models

Head Start

• ECE affects children’s school readiness and long-term outcomes

• 173 Head Start centers

• 4,667 children in study

• 2,559 three year olds

• 2,108 four year olds

*Head Start Impact Study, USDHHS, NHS, 2010


Program Models

Head Start Impact Study Summary

• 4 year olds language and literacy faded

• No increase in math or pre-writing skills

• Slight gains did not lead to long-term gains in elementary school

• No affect for children attending HS for 2 years (entered at age 3)

Funding

• Fiscal budget in 2011 was $8.2 billion

*Head Start Impact Study, USDHHS, NHS, 2010


WHAT WE KNOW


What We Know…

“There is a greater tragedy than being labeled as a slow learner - and that

is being treated as one.”


“Children are eager and capable learners…”


Research (Hart & Risley, 1995)

Words Heard per hour Affirmatives per hour Prohibitions per hour

Professional family child

2153 32 5





2153 32 5

Working class child 1251 12 7





2153 32 5

Working class child 1251 12 7

Child living in poverty

616 5 11


“Early learning begets later learning and early success breeds later success…The later in life we attempt to

repair early deficits, the costlier remediation becomes…”

James Heckman, Nobel Prize-Winner, Economics, 2000


A longitudinal study of 407 students found that 74% of the children whose difficulty in reading was first

identified at nine years of age or older continued to read in the lowest quintile throughout their middle and high

school years.


WHAT WE NEED


Shift in Thinking

From… To…

StudentWhich students need help?

What help does EACH student need?

SystemCategorical program and

people availableIntention design based on services

and resources needed


What We Need

• All students achieving to high standards by being provided sufficient time and support

• All low performing students being provided focused instruction

• All teachers teaching students to high standards by being given the right conditions and assistance

• All teachers intervening in the learning process when there is an indication of a failure to learn

• All teachers focusing early intervention resources on the early years of schooling

• All good first instruction being provided by the classroom teacher

*Leadership Compass, Fall 2006, National Association of School Principals


HOW WE GET THERE


How We Get There

Shifts in Preschool Practice

• Early intervention as prevention

• High quality teaching

• Responsive care-giving

• Differentiated support and instruction

• High quality curriculum

• On-going assessment

• Continuous progress monitoring

• Data-based decision-making


How We Get There

What Creates Sustained Gains?

• Evidence-based decision making

• Changes in teaching and practice

• Proven-effective curriculum

• Professional development

• Monitoring progress


How We Get There

Quality preschool program have common characteristics

• Clear expectations and goals

• Leadership & support

• Classroom management

• Proven effective curriculum

• Evidence-based teaching/practice

• Progress monitoring

• Close gaps and sustain gains

To learn more about Accelify and find out about future webinars, events, and news, visit www.accelify.com or follow us on social media.

Thank you.

For additional information, contact:[email protected]

SPEDCHAT WEBINAR SERIESBuild knowledge. Gain expertise. Share best practices.

http://www.accelify.com/

mailto:[email protected]

www.twitter.com/accelifyllc

www.facebook.com/Accelify

www.linkedin.com/company/accelify-llc

www.accelify.com

PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of...

Education

Transcript of PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of...