Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Children in the Positive Education Program

1
Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Children in the
Positive Education ProgramsEarly Childhood
Centers

• Kimberly T. Kendziora
• American Institutes for Research
• Presented September 28, 2005 to the
• Advisory Board for the
• Long Term Outcomes for Children Receiving
  Preschool Intervention for Behavioral and
  Developmental Concerns Project
• Cleveland, OH

2
Acknowledgements

• Funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of
  Educations Office for Special Education Programs
• Performed in collaboration with Early Childhood
  staff from the Positive Education Program
• David Osher, Principal Investigator
• Elizabeth Spier, Bridget Goosby, Yen Chau, and
  Fiona Helsel, Co-Investigators

3
Background

• Behavior plays an important role in the education
  of children with disabilities
• Young children with undercontrolled, challenging
  behavior are at risk for poor long-term outcomes
• Emerging behavior problems can be successfully
  addressed before school entry

4
The Regional Intervention Program Study

• This was previously the only long-term study of
  children who received early intervention for
  behavioral concerns
• at a 3-9 year follow-up, RIP children worked,
  complied, and played at school very much like
  their typical peers, and complied 82 of the time
  at home

5
The RIP Study, continued

• At a 25 year follow-up
• 39 out of 40 had graduated high school
• None received special education services for
  emotional or behavioral disturbances
• 39 out of 40 were employed
• Source Strain, Steele, Ellis, Timm, 1981
  Strain Timm, 2001

6
About the Early Childhood Centers

• Previously known as the EIC program
• Founded in 1976, the ECCs offer a professionally
  administered, parent-operated therapeutic program
  for children
• Parents receive an experiential, coached training
  program to improve their relationships with
  their children and to enhance their childrens
  growth and development
• Parents are trained to teach and work with their
  own children, and later work with new families
  entering the program

7
ECC Population

• Two thirds of the children are preschool children
  with a disability (PCD)
• Of the remaining third, half of these are under 3
  years of age and eligible for an IFSP
• The other half of the remaining third, or 1/6 of
  the children are age 3 or older and at risk
• May have significant problems at home or in the
  community but do not qualify as PCD in the
  schools
• Parenting concerns (DCFS referrals)

8
ECC Essential Components

• Daily classroom/small group experience
• Daily parent-child play/training sessions
• Development of home programming
• Consultation with other care/service providers
• Weekly theory classes
• Support from parents who have received services
  at ECC
• Strength based, ecological focus
• Team based staff with both education and mental
  health orientation

9
ECC Critical Attitudes

• Parent implementation
• No reject
• Re-EDucation principles
• Celebrate strengths and small steps
• Focus on What do we do now? not Why?
• Appropriate referral to other services
• Lifetime commitment

10
Research Questions

• What important school outcomes, such as grades,
  achievement test scores, attendance, grade
  retention, disciplinary removals, special
  education service use, and high school
  graduation, occur within four groups of children
  matched at first grade

11
Matched Child DesignFour Children in Each Set
Child 1 Enrolled in the PEP EIC program
Child 3 Began receiving special education
services for emotional/ behavioral problems in
first grade
Question What are long-term academic outcomes
for children receiving different amounts of a
parent-driven preschool behavioral intervention?
Question Does the timing of intervention
(preschool vs. first grade) matter?
Child 4 Typical school mate
Child 2 Enrolled in a school district-based early
intervention program
Question What are local norms for academic
development for children like this?
Question What are long-term academic outcomes
for children receiving typical district-sponsored
preschool intervention?
12
Research Questions, continued

• What were the observed effects of the Early
  Childhood Center program, and how were these
  achieved?
• How cost-effective is parent-driven preschool
  intervention?
• Data are still being collected for this analysis

13
Research Participants

• All children ever enrolled in an ECC were
  eligible to participate approximately 2,400
• We were able to locate about 800 families, and of
  these more than half returned consent forms.
• Our consented sample of 389 was submitted to the
  Cleveland Municipal School District for matching
• 103 students had at least some matches, resulting
  in a Cleveland sample of 249 students
• Of the 249, 241 had elementary school data 180
  had middle school data 118 had high school data

14
Limitations of the Research Design

• Intervening variables what matters more for
  long-term outcome a long-ago intervention, or
  the accumulation of experiences since that
  intervention?
• Biased group membership how are ECC families
  different from those in the other matched groups?

15
ECC Service Data

• Children with information about their services at
  ECC

 
 
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Attendance, Truancy, and Suspensions Across Study
Groups
22
Procedure

• Only Cleveland Municipal School District had the
  capacity to identify matches for the comparison
  study.
• Privacy, consent issues proved overwhelming when
  only paper student records were available
• District-level attendance records and school
  transcripts were obtained and reviewed for
  participants and their matched peers.

23
Who Are the Children in this Analysis?
24
Who Are the Children in this Analysis?
25
Who Are the Children in this Analysis?
26
Importance of Attendance

• On average, the higher a students attendance
  rate in grades 19
• the more high school credits they attempted each
  year
• r .23, p lt .01
• the more high school credits they completed each
  year
• r .72, p lt .001
• the better their yearly high school GPA
• r .73, p lt .001

27
Attendance Results
School Grade
28
Attendance Results

• Across grades 1 through 9, ECC children had
  significantly better attendance than all other
  groups, averaging 93.
• At 90, children receiving district-based
  preschool services had significantly higher
  attendance rates than those receiving initial
  services in first grade or typically developing
  peers
• The latter two groups had the lowest attendance
  rates, at 84 and 87 respectively.

29
Importance of Early Truancy

• Even in the first grade, students who later
  dropped out of high school had significantly more
  unexcused absences than those who went on to
  graduate
• t (42.90) 3.75, p lt .01

30
Unexcused Absences/Truancy
School Grade
31
Truancy Results

• ECC children had significantly less truancy than
  the other groups, averaging 2.1
• Across grades 1 through 9, children initially
  receiving services in first grade had
  significantly more truancy than the other groups,
  averaging 7.6.
• Children receiving district-based preschool and
  typically developing children had truancy rates
  at 4.0 and 4.9 respectively.

32
Suspensions
School Grade
33
Suspension Results

• Although all four groups had low levels of
  suspension, children receiving any early
  interventioneither ECC or district-based had
  the fewest average days suspended at 0.13 and
  0.28, respectively.
• Children initially receiving services in first
  grade and typically developing peers spent
  significantly more days suspended, averaging
  0.47 and 0.77 respectively.

34
Attendance Study Discussion

• Attendance is about both a childs willingness to
  go to school and a caregivers ability to get
  them there.
• Children who received ECC services had better
  attendance than matched children both with and
  without identified special needs.
• Truancy is not just a high school problem it can
  emerge early in elementary school.

35
Emerging Results GPA Study

• Same sample analysis of high school GPA over
  time (63 children had high school data)
• No differences in how GPAs change over time, but
  significant differences in GPA by group
• ECC children 2.55
• District Preschool children 2.51
• Service at 1st grade children 1.83
• Typically developing children 1.96
• ECC groups GPAs are significantly higher than
  those in the latter two groups not different
  than district-based preschool group

36
Emerging Results Dropout Study

• Same sample as previous
• No statistically significant results

37
Effects of ECC Dosage on Educational Outcomes
38
Dosage Study Sample

• 309 ECC children
• 103 who attended Cleveland Municipal schools
• 206 who attended any other district
• Dosage __actual days__
• scheduled days
• Median dosage .73
• Sample split into high and low groups

39
Ohio Proficiency Exam Scores 4th grade
Note all group differences are statistically
significant
40
Ohio Proficiency Exam Scores 6th grade
Note all group differences are statistically
significant
41
Ohio Proficiency Exam Scores 9th grade
Note no group differences are statistically
significant
42
Educational Outcomes Elementary
Effect B Chi-Square R2
Logistic Regression Results  
-Repeated Grade -0.711 2.859
-Special Ed. Services 0.539 5.138
-Restrictiveness of Special Ed. Services 1.553
- Fully mainstreamed -0.321
- Partially mainstreamed -0.255
OLS Regression Results
-Number of Days Attended 9.252 0.036
-Number of Days Tardy -1.604 0.028
-Number of Unexcused Absences -1.048 0.024
-Number of Days Suspended -0.014 0.003
-Average Grade in English 0.580 0.129
-Average Grade in Math 0.214     0.017
plt.05, plt.01 positive numbers mean higher values for the high dosage group negative numbers mean higher values for the low dosage group
43
Educational Outcomes Middle School
Effect B   Chi-Square R2
Logistic Regression Results
-Repeated Grade 1.227 2.979
-Special Ed. Services 0.122 0.111
-Restrictiveness of Special Ed. Services 0.808
- Fully mainstreamed -0.427
- Partially mainstreamed -0.318
OLS Regression Results
-Number of Days Attended 3.904 0.005
-Number of Days Tardy 1.755 0.014
-Number of Unexcused Absences 1.203 0.001
-Number of Days Suspended -0.59 0.031
- Average Grade in English 0.031 0.000
- Average Grade in Math -0.062     0.001
plt.05, plt.01 positive numbers mean higher values for the high dosage group negative numbers mean higher values for the low dosage group
44
Educational Outcomes High School
Effect B   Chi-Square R2
Logistic Regression Results
-Repeated Grade 0.383 0.325
-Special Ed. Services -0.177 0.379
-Restrictiveness of Special Ed. Services 1.604
- Fully mainstreamed -0.226
- Partially mainstreamed 0.214
OLS Regression Results
-Number of Days Attended 14.295 0.044
-Number of Days Tardy -2.699 0.061
-Number of Unexcused Absences -0.535 0.000
-Number of Days Suspended -0.175 0.003
- Average Grade in English 0.47 0.044
- Average Grade in Math 0.144     0.004
plt.05, plt.01 positive numbers mean higher values for the high dosage group negative numbers mean higher values for the low dosage group
45
Dosage Study Discussion

• Results of group comparison study for attendance
  are replicated with this alternative methodology
• Results may be strongest in elementary school
• Children of families who attended ECC more
  faithfully did better on 4th and 6th grade Ohio
  Proficiency Exams than low ECC attenders did

46
Focus Study How Does ECC Work?
47
Participants and Procedures

• Conducted 90 minute focus groups with
• 10 Parents (2 groups)
• 7 Professional staff
• 2 Paraprofessionals
• Conducted 30 minute interviews with 9 former
  participants
• Participants were identified by ECC staff, who
  were asked to select a representative
  cross-section of individuals

48
Effects of the Program

• Improved child behavior and skills
• Getting your kids literacy level up, getting a
  kid an ability to communicate, getting them able
  to read, when they cant function on a more basic
  a level, the social skill building that happens
  for the kids is enormous.
• Improved parenting skills
• I was better able to deal with the kids and
  enjoyed that time at home more.
• When my mom was coming over and giving incorrect
  parenting Id have to correct her. Id have to
  share the skills with her and share the skills
  with the teacher in kindergarten.

49
Effects of the Program

• Sense of community
• In PEP everyone had the same problem and
  everyone was equal and they didnt judge, they
  just helped.
• The power of community, because people spent a
  significant amount of time there, relationships
  were formed that I think were tremendously
  supportive and healing. And I think these
  continue to this day. I think this is a healing
  community and an important dynamic.
• They learn to advocate by meeting parents and
  families and making friendships. To have that
  supportive network is an essential component.
• EIC is the first place where people come and
  arent told that theyre bad parents.

50
Why Does ECC Work?

• Knowledge and Skill
• I learned to give positives, you always will
  love him, but this he did and these are the
  consequences
• Also the practice, the guided practice, they do
  it we give them feedback, and its not like a
  workshop. You go to a workshop and its not
  interactive, but at PEP its the instruction, the
  practice, the feedback about the practice, and a
  big piece too is the sense of confidence.
• Empowerment
• I felt more empowered because staff was telling
  me that I had skills.I was then able to go into
  my childs other settings and be very assertive
  and aggressiveI was able to go in and advocate
  in a positive, professional way. I could
  demonstrate my skills and I could advocate and
  get changes made.
• When you leave EIC you know what your rights
  are. I wasnt afraid to ask for them because I
  knew I was entitled to them.

51
Why Does ECC Work?

• Demystifying Systems
• They get that practice, theyre a part of a
  team. They get to watch somebody who knows how to
  talk with a school district and just seeing that
  they absorb a model.
• Role of Paraprofessionals
• Theyre so credible. I can say one thing as a
  professional, but Im not going home with the
  kid. My saying, Research shows is undermined
  by the fact I dont put him to bed at night. The
  paraprofessional says I do go home at night. The
  paraprofessional can say the tough things.
• Parent to Parent
• The key to the success is the parent helping
  parent under the guidance of professionals. The
  parent to parent component is the core of the
  program.

52
For Further Information

• Kimberly Kendziora
• American Institutes for Research
• kkendziora_at_air.org
• [phone]