Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Children in the Positive Education Program's Early Childhood Centers

1. Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Children in the Positive Education Program’sEarly 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 Education’s 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 children’s 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 2: Enrolled in a school district-based early intervention program Child 4: Typical school mate 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. Variable N Average Std Dev Range Age at enrollment 369 4.0 1.1 1.6 – 6.7 Months through Phase I 42 11.4 8.9 1 – 36.6 Months through Phase II 137 12.0 5.8 2.8 – 29.3 ECC Service Data • Children with information about their services at ECC

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 student’s attendance rate in grades 1–9: • the more high school credits they attempted each year r = .23, p < .01 • the more high school credits they completed each year r = .72, p < .001 • the better their yearly high school GPA r = .73, p < .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 < .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 intervention–either 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 child’s willingness to go to school and a caregiver’s 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 group’s 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

43. Educational Outcomes: Middle School

44. Educational Outcomes: High School

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 can’t 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 I’d have to correct her. I’d 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 didn’t 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 aren’t told that they’re 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 it’s 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 child’s other settings and be very assertive and aggressive…I 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 wasn’t afraid to ask for them because I knew I was entitled to them.”