School Readiness Report

1

2011 - 2012

&Early Head Start

First Things First

Preparing our Youngest for

Success in School

2

Background and History

The Learning Center for Families has an ac ve Planning Commi ee with stakeholders from the Board,

Management and parent members. Over the years we have developed long and short range goals that

addressed the needs of low‐income families in our community with measurable objec ves to ensure the

par cipa ng families’ success. However, the nature of these goals shi ed significantly in December 2007

when the Office of Head Start released the

Revised Head Start Act.

The Revised Act specified that by December of

2011, program goals needed to include specific

outcomes for improving the school readiness of

children par cipa ng in all Head Start programs.

From 2008 ‐ 2010, the Office of Head Start

developed a great deal of informa on on what

school readiness should look like for three and

four year olds in a preschool model.

While we were awai ng clear instruc ons for Early Head Start, we were relying on a Technical Assistance

Paper from the Early Head Start Na onal Resources Center en tled The Founda ons for School Readiness:

Fostering Developmental Competence in the Earliest Years which

was published in 2003.

On October 3, 2011 the 1st Na onal Head Start Birth to Five

Leadership Ins tute unveiled specifically what areas they wanted

Early Head Start programs to measure to determine if children are

making progress towards school readiness:

Language & Literacy

Physical Development and Health

Social & Emo onal Development

Cogni on & General Knowledge

Approaches to Learning

Based on these newly defined areas of early childhood child development, on November 29, 2011, the

Management Team quickly scrambled to put together our first dra of the TLC‐EHS School Readiness Goals.

This effort was thin on goals and objec ves and more resembled a list of ac vi es and tools to measure

children’s progress towards eventually matricula ng into preschool or kindergarten.

3

On February 22 ‐ 23, 2012, our school readiness team a ended two days of training put together by Utah’s

Training and Technical Assistance team. At this mee ng we realized three important things:

What we had put together for school readiness goals was woefully inadequate,

We could not use screeners to measure children’s progress, and

We were no further behind than the rest of our Early Head Start colleagues throughout the region.

On May 29, 2012, we brought in consultants who had an abundance of experience with OHS and School

Readiness. They helped us pull together a team to rewrite our goals. We had great par cipa on from the

school districts, SUU Head Start, parents, staff, Board, and Policy Council members who rewrote our school

readiness goals. The group worked diligently to develop goals that incorporated, not just the five learning

areas specified by OHS, but also all the requirements for family engagement. These goals were dra ed to

measure the progress of children as well as their parents par cipa ng as crucial partners in their children’s

school readiness success. The goals were adopted by our Board of Directors and Policy Council at their June

2012 mee ngs.

In order to measure how effec ve parents are in suppor ng their

children’s educa on, all Learning Consultants and Mentors were trained

on the PICCOLO (Paren ng Interac ons with Children: Checklist of

Observa ons Linked to Outcomes) assessment during the month of

June. The instrument was used to measure the family engagement

framework elements embedded in each of our school readiness goals in

August.

4

Our original inten on was to aggregate data towards progress on the children’s developmental goals using

the Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF) that was developed by the Early Childhood Outcome Center to

measure func onal progress of children birth to three in Part C programs. COSFs were entered for all

par cipa ng children on November 2011, February 2012 and July 2012. However, in comparing the

different sets of data, we found that we were unable to draw any conclusions as to how children were

progressing in each developmental area.

During September 25 ‐ 27, 2012, several staff went to a Child Plus So ware training and learned how to

create our own school readiness reports and how to make be er use of the tool to track and analyze

school readiness data.

On September 28, 2012, we added long and short term objec ves to our SR goals per grant applica on

instruc ons for our con nua on grant.

2011 ‐ 2012 School Readiness Goals

PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH

Children will develop skills that support op mal physical health, increasingly complex motor development

and improved health habits through family partnership with TLC which recognizes and advocates for their

family’s well‐being.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of typically developing children will maintain age‐appropriate

fine and gross motor skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 80% of children iden fied with

disabili es and served under both Part C and Early Head Start will

maintain or increase their fine and gross motor skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of families will engage in

improved health habits.

SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Through family partnerships with TLC, children will experience an

increase in posi ve parent‐child interac ons that result in more secure

a achment and op mal emo onal and behavioral health.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of typically developing

children will maintain age‐appropriate social/emo onal skills.



5

maintain or increase their social/emo onal skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of families will demonstrate an increase in posi ve parent‐child

interac ons.

LANGUAGE & LITERACY

Children will have increased language and literacy experiences that promote func onal communica on skills

through inten onal rela onships with their families as life‐long

learners.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of typically

developing children will maintain age‐appropriate language

and literacy skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 80% of children iden fied

with disabili es and served under both Part C and Early

Head Start will maintain or increase their language and

literacy skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of families will

engage in ac vi es that promote their life‐long learning.

COGNITION & GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

Children will increase their cogni ve abili es and acquisi on of

general knowledge through posi ve rela onships with their families

in partnership with TLC.


children will maintain age‐appropriate cogni on and general

knowledge skills.



maintain or increase their cogni on and general knowledge skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of families will have a

be er awareness of how to support their child’s school readiness.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING

Children will have mul ple opportuni es embedded in their rou nes to expand their play, explora on, and

crea vity, supported by their families in their role as life‐long educators who follow their child’s lead.

6


children will demonstrate age‐appropriate approaches to learning

skills.



maintain or increase their demonstra on of approaches to learning

skills.

Short Range Objec ve: In 2013, 100% of families will demonstrate

an increase in following their child’s lead during play and explora on.

Data Analysis

The COSF measures children’s func onal levels across 3 areas:

Posi ve Social‐Emo onal Skills‐ The extent that the child shows behaviors and skills appropriate for his or

her age across a variety of se ngs and situa ons (a) Rela ng with adults; (b) Rela ng with other children;

and (c) Following rules related to groups or interac ng with others.

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills‐ The extent that the child shows behaviors and skills

appropriate for his or her age across a variety of se ngs and situa ons (a) Thinking, reasoning,

remembering and problem solving; (b) Understanding symbols; and (c) Understanding the physical and

social worlds.

Taking Appropriate Ac on to Meet Needs‐ The extent that the child shows behaviors and skills

appropriate for his or her age across a variety of se ngs and situa ons (a) Taking care of basic needs

(e.g., showing hunger, dressing, feeding, toile ng, etc.); (b) Contribu ng to own health and safety; (c)

Ge ng from place to place (mobility) and using tools (e.g., forks, strings a ached to objects.)

The COSF u lizes a seven point Likert scale from 1, where the child isn’t able to use any immediate

founda onal skills related to an outcome upon which to build age‐appropriate func oning across se ngs

and situa ons; to a 7, where a child’s func oning is age‐appropriate across all or almost all se ngs and

situa ons.

In order to further analyze the data, we crosswalked the COSF with the Five Learning Areas as outlined by the

Office of Head Start:

Social & Emo onal Development

Language & Literacy Cogni on & General Knowledge

Physical Development

Posi ve Social‐Emo onal Skills

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Ac on to Meet Needs

Approaches to Learning

7

Typically Developing Children

Posi ve Social‐Emo onal Skills

Typically Developing Children Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills

Typically Developing Children

Taking Appropriate Ac on to Meet

Needs

Children with Special Needs Posi ve Social‐Emo onal Skills

Children with Special Needs

Taking Appropriate

Ac on to Meet Needs

Children with Special Needs

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 6% 2%

7 0% 2% 2% 2% 4% 8% 64%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0%

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 12% 0%

7 0% 0% 8% 2% 2% 6% 62%

ENTRY SCORES ALONG THE TOP EXIT

SCORES A

LONG THE SID

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 4%

7 0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 8% 58%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 0% 4% 7% 0% 0%

4 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0%

5 0% 4% 0% 0% 11% 4% 0%

6 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 11% 0%

7 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 19%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 0% 0% 7% 0% 4% 4% 0%

5 4% 0% 0% 7% 4% 4% 0%

6 0% 0% 4% 7% 7% 11% 0%

7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 15%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% 0%

4 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 12% 0%

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0%

7 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 8% 35%

8

Children's Health Indicators

Children's Dental Indicators

Pregnant Women Health Indicators

9

So How Did We Do?

For typically developing children, we set our goal that 100% of children would

maintain age‐appropriate development in all three areas measured by the COSF.

This was the case in two areas: Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills; and,

Taking Appropriate Ac on to Meet Needs. In the area of Posi ve Social‐

Emo onal Skills, 98% of the children maintained age‐appropriate skills. One child

lost skills and was referred to early interven on for evalua on. But at the me of the sor ng of the data,

he was s ll counted as a typically developing child.

Our goal for children who had been iden fied with special needs was that 80% of them would maintain the

same trajectory or increase their developmental skills to be closer to those of their typically developing

peers. The results were as follows:

Posi ve Social‐Emo onal Skills‐ 74% of the children maintained or improved in age‐appropriate

func on.

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills‐ 89% of the children maintained or improved in age‐

appropriate func on.

Taking Appropriate Ac on to Meet Needs‐ 78% of the children maintained or improved in age‐

appropriate func on.

Along with measuring children’s gross and fine motor skill progress in our Physical Development goal, every

month we measured 8 different health indicators for children and pregnant women to determine if families

were engaging in improved health habits.

Lessons Learned:

In our data gathering and analysis we found that the tools we were using were not measuring our

outcomes as accurately as we had hoped. We cross‐walked the COSF into the five OHS Child Development

and Early Learning Framework areas, but then we were unable to tease it apart to measure each domain

separately. We decided to eliminate the COSF for measurement and use straight ELAP scores.

There was some ques on on the reliability of staff administra on of the PICCOLO assessment. Some staff

felt that the formal nature of the PICCOLO was not a good fit for all of our families. It was decided that we

would switch to the H.O.M.E. Both of these changes are set to take place with the 2012 ‐ 2013 repor ng

cycle.

We did not set quan fiable goals for healthy habits or for improved parental behaviors that were measured

by the PICCOLO. For the 2012 ‐ 2013 school year, we have developed data charts to track families using the

HOME.

L T

C

10

We recognize that for some disorders, such as Down syndrome, progress across me can actually result in a

child having an ever‐widening gap between their age and a ainment of age‐appropriate skills in the first

three years of their development.

There is a lack of access to dental care for our pregnant mothers. Many of them do not have private

insurance and are not eligible for Medicaid or ACCCHS. For some mothers who are able to get emergency

Medicaid, dental services are excluded. We need to develop strategies for ge ng affordable care to our

mothers to ensure a healthy outcome for their babies.

Strengthening our Approach

As a consequence to the process of goal development, data gathering and data analysis, we gained cri cal

insight all along the way. As previously noted, we rewrote our goals three mes. During the 2011 ‐ 2012

me period, we changed assessment tools twice. We determined that we needed to change our message

from Early Head Start being a family and child health and development program, to a school readiness

program that focuses on children’s learning by ensuring they are in op mum health; that their parents are

supported in ways to s mulate their child’s learning through everyday rou nes; and that they are coached

in effec ve ways to be strong advocates for their children’s educa on.

Some of the strategies we employed were as follows:

We trained staff to reframe all of our ac vi es in terms of what they mean for school readiness.

We added a School Readiness Corner to our newsle er to link the latest informa on on how infants and

toddlers learn with academic performance later on when they are in school.

We have posted our school readiness goals at all of our socializa on sites and included the informa on

in our Family Binders.

We cra ed our message for our popula on to address their unique circumstances. This was used

specifically for our mono‐lingual Spanish speaking families which included the importance of learning

English. We also developed specific transi on strategies for our families who are members of the FLDS

who do not send their children to public school.

We have crosswalked the ELAP items with where they fit into the OHS Child Development and Early

Learning Framework. We are entering the month scores and comparing them to the child’s age. This

way we can determine if children are maintaining age‐appropriate development in all areas. For

children with special needs, we can determine at what rate they are making progress.

Documents

School Readiness Report