Pilot Early Childhood |
Previous | 1 of 1 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
E 1850.3 P643e 2007/08 c.1 State of Oklahoma ~.'.~~~. :.....Pilot Early Childhood Program Community Action Proll.'Ct I •• •••• .. . ..... .. ••• YEAR 2 SUMMARY INTRO The number of children served through the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program during Year 2 increased by more than 67% over Year 1. Total classrooms grew from 91 (June 2007) to 139 (June 2008) and more than 1,200 at-risk children were served during the second year of operation. The early childhood education providers participating in this program during Year 2 include 15 agencies operating in more than 20 communities across Oklahoma. Ten providers are non-profits (seven of whom operate Early Head Start and/or Head Start programs), four providers are private/for-profits, and one is a Tribal government. • provider operations and eligibility, • staffing, • training, and • program evaluation Throughout Year 2 of the program, the 15 participating providers were monitored for compliance using the original goals as stated by Community Action Project of Tulsa County, Inc., (CAPTe)in its proposal. These goals include improving the quality of early education services provided in Oklahoma and expanding capacity to serve additional low-income children from birth through age three by implementing high standards for: During Year 1 of the Pilot Program, CAPTCfocused mainly on program implementation and standard compliance. At year-end the two primary outcomes to report included: (1) implementation/growth at each program, and (2) compliance with program requirements and expectations. The focus of Year 2 work shifted toward assessingprogram quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. While monitoring compliance of all standard program requirements continued during the year, a greater focus was placed on each provider's progress in raising the quality of their program. Major components for improving quality throughout the program year included: continued training, staffing structure improvements, developing and reaching professional development benchmarks, preparing for and meeting National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYe)accreditation requirements, and networking among providers to gain knowledge from other similar programs. As outlined in this report, the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program has achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality. TRAINING LEADERSHIP TRAINING Sixty-three supervisors, managers, site directors, executive directors, mentor teachers and other supervisory staff attended 14 hours of Leadership Training. The focus of the Leadership Training, presented by WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies, was to provide upper management and others responsible for directing operations and staff with an overview of the fundamentals of the PITC(Program for Infant/Toddler Care) philosophy and the six essential policies: primary care, small groups, continuity of care, individualized care, cultural responsiveness, and inclusion of children with special needs. Tips on staffing for consistency and hiring practices were included. The Leadership Training emphasized the role of the program leaders in assuring the implementation of the PITCprogram policy recommendations, as they support the work of direct service staff. INFANT/TODDLER CARE TRAINING Forty-eight teachers and staff completed 48 hours of training (Modules I-IV) in the WestEd philosophy of responsive, respectful, and relationship-based infant/toddler care. Approximately 100 additional staff participated in one or more modules. Oklahoma PITCModules I-IV were presented roughly one month apart by Betty Blaize and Carol Aghayan of 2 Excellence for Children. Training was provided in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and each four module series was repeated in both locations to accommodate staff hired later in the year. Oklahoma PITCconsisted of the following: • Module I: Social -Emotional Development • Module II: Group Care& Environments • Module III: Learning & Development • Module IV: Cultures, Families, & Providers Basedon the trainers' prior experience in the state, sessionswere specifically designed for Oklahoma caregivers/ teachers. Additionally, to ensure effective transfer of child development knowledge to actual practice in centers, trainers used adult learning techniques and allowed for individual learning styles. Overall feedback from Oklahoma PITCattendees was very positive. ADVANCED / CONTINUATION TRAINING Thirty-five teachers and staff completed 28 hours of WestEd Continuation Training, comprised of Advanced Training I and II. Approximately 60 additional staff participated in either part I or part II of the training. The training was provided by the WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies and was presented in two separate two-day sessions (two days for part I and two days for part II). Both parts were held once in Tulsa and again in Oklahoma City. The Continuation Training was designed for teachers who had completed all four modules and provided an opportunity for participants to reflect and expand on knowledge acquired through previous PITCtrainings, such as the implementation of PITe's six essential policies. As requested by Year 1 feedback from attendees, this training also specifically addressed: serving children with disabilities or other special needs and their families; and discipline and guidance, particularly for children with mental health issues. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Participating providers received classroom-based training and technical assistance.The purpose of technical assistance was to support the PITCtraining received and to facilitate the translation of the PITC philosophy into practice. Providers participating in the first year of the program were visited by Excellencefor Children technical assistance specialists. On-site technical assistance for second year providers was delivered by WestEd infant/toddler specialists. Both Excellence for Children and WestEd included the following in their approach to technical assistance: teacher-child interactions and respectful, responsive, relationship-based care. Classroom staff also received information/assistance to support their work earning or maintaining their NAEYCAccreditation. When appropriate, some Head Start/Early Head Start Performance Standards were also discussed or focused on. First year sites were visited twice, with significantly enhanced care noted in most second visits. Second year sites were visited three time throughout the year. All technical assistance visits resulted in written reports which were shared with each provider and with CAPTe. FAMILY SUPPORT TRAINING Thirty family support staff and site management level staff attended a one-day seminar training provided by CAPTe.Family Support Training was not included in the initial Year 2 training plan; however, several providers requested additional guidance in this area and it was determined that a training event might be the best way to address all requests. Training was led by staff from Family & Children's Services, CAPTe'spartner agency for the delivery of family supportive services. The training was held in Tulsa and included topics such as building relationships with families, community partnerships, family assessments, resource and referral ideas, time management skills for staff and documentation and confidentiality. A good amount of time was also allowed for questions and answers. Evaluation forms were provided and responses from attendees indicated that (1) participants felt the training was very useful and informative, and (2) they had a better sense of direction in terms of the role family supportive services plays in the Pilot Program. Information shared through the training drew largely from the services provided through F&CS/CAPTC; however, much emphasis was placed on the fact that each program should provide family supportive services based on the needs of families in their area/communities. The training also gave attendees the opportunity to network with peers from acrossthe state with varying education, experience and knowledge. 3 BUDGET PLANNING MEETING Another training added in Year 2 was a one-day financial meeting, which was held in late March. Much like family supportive services, many questions had been posed about financial processes, therefore, a meeting was arranged to address all requests at one time. With Year 3 financial information due soon, the main topics of the meeting included: Year 3 budgeting, application and invoicing processes.Two to three staff members from each provider group attended. Forms to be used were presented to the group and completed sample forms were also provided. CAPTe'sController presented the information and answered questions during and after the session. OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT TRAINING A total of 101 teachers and staff attended training sessionsin observation and assessment using the Creative Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers and Two's web-based application. The three-day sessionswere offered in three locations to accommodate statewide participants: Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Hugo. The training consisted of two full days of classroom instruction in observation, assessment and the Developmental Continuum for Infants, Toddlers and Two's, and one-day of computer lab instruction in CreativeCurriculum.net. Sessions/instructors were contracted through Teaching Strategies, Inc. The purpose of the Observation and Assessment Training was to give staff entering data into CreativeCurriculum.net the direction needed to use the tool and also to provide them with the education necessaryto make/enter child assessments. In addition to these sessions, ongoing technical assistance was available through Pilot Program staff, and some programs requested/received further on-site training. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES During Year 2, additional staff joined the Pilot Program team: a Project Assistant, a second Program Coordinator and a Professional Development Coordinator. The Professional Development Coordinator and Program Coordinators had ongoing contact with participating providers and were easily able to identify any concerns or needs. The Professional Development Coordinator's role primarily focused on supporting providers with training, technical assistance and accreditation, while the Program Coordinators' main responsibilities involved monitoring and compliance. In their different roles, they were able to come together as a team to share information and better serve the providers using a multi-disciplinary approach. Because all of the participating providers have unique strengths or obstacles, this approach allowed the team to work with each at the appropriate level and to focus on key components for improving quality. Providers and Pilot Program staff worked together throughout the program year to add trainings, track participation at required trainings, and to review and sometimes modify staffing patterns at provider locations. Pilot Program staff worked with providers to establish professional development plans and linked programs with resources to assist with these plans. Examples include: accessing the Scholars for Excellence in Child Care (Scholars Program), receiving CEUsfor PITCtraining and other trainings, providing information and guidance for obtaining CDAs and Certificates of Mastery, referring to technology centers for training needs, and encouraging programs/staff to take advantage the various types of assistance and services available through the Center for Early Childhood Professional Development (CECPD). To assist with meeting yearly participation requirements for obtaining NAEYCaccreditation, providers received on-site technical assistance from the Professional Development Coordinator. Technical assistance and referrals to area child care resource and referral centers resulted in visible progress. Providers are working through the application process, creating portfolios, and making program improvements. Eachis on target to obtain NAEYCaccreditation as scheduled. PROGRAM EVALUATION As grantee for the Pilot Program, CAPTC had dual goals for program evaluation: To inform continuous program improvement and to document child and family outcomes. Consistent with these goals, CAPTCcollaborated with the Early Childhood Education Institute at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, led by Diane M. Horm, Ph.D., to design and implement evaluation for the program. The resulting evaluation plan is a three-phase, long-term program evaluation. This three-phase evaluation plan is designed to answer three main questions: • PhaseI: Are the participating providers meeting Pilot Program requirements and expectations? 4 • Phase II: What is the quality of the Pilot Program-funded classrooms? • Phase III: What is the impact of the Pilot Program on children? PHASE I Phase I, implemented with Pilot Program sites starting in their first year of operation, documents program establishment and growth. In essence, it answers the question: Are the Pilot Program sites meeting requirements and expectations? As discussed previously, the number of classrooms and children served increased over the first two years of the Pilot Program. It did, however, take longer than anticipated for new classrooms to open, but once open, classrooms were typically fully enrolled. Conversations with providers revealed that the difficulty in opening classrooms tended to be due to construction delays. In terms of staffing, there were four bachelor degreed lead teachers on average for every five classrooms and the average family support worker had a caseload of 21 families; both of these measures show a higher standard than required by the Pilot Program. Of the staff hired without an associate or bachelor degree, one-quarter did not currently have a CDA and were required to obtain one within a year. This finding speaks to the difficulty in hiring qualified staff already holding a CDA. Relative to professional development provided by the Pilot Program, information collected for Phase I evaluation did show that teachers and other staff attended training as required. PHASE II The focus of Phase II evaluation, implemented with Pilot Program sites in their second year of operation, shifted toward assessing program quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. The major question was: What is the quality of Pilot Program-funded classrooms? Staff from the Ou-Tulsa Early Childhood Education Institute randomly selected 46 of the 60 (77%) classrooms and administered the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised or ITERS-R and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. A specially trained observer spent at least four hours of observation time per classroom while administering these measures. The ITERS-R has been widely used to assess the quality of group care for infants and toddlers. The instrument was used in the 2006 Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, a rigorous random-assignment evaluation involving 3,001 children and families in 17 Early Head Start Programs. As noted in Table 1, Pilot Program ITERS-Rresults indicate the overall level of quality was "good" (a rating of 5 is "good" quality), across the 46 Pilot Program classrooms observed. The overall mean of 5, for Pilot Program classrooms is very similar to the mean found in the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Means ratings on five of the seven ITERS-R subscales indicate "good" to "excellent" quality for Pilot Program classrooms. Two subscales, personal care routines and program structure, received mean ratings below 5 or "good." Due to instrument design, lower means ratings in these two subscales (e.g. diapering, hand washing, and playground time and supervision) are not unusual. Table 1. Mean ITERS-Rscores for Pilot Program Classrooms ITERS-R 5 8 6 4 2 o 5pace& Personal Listening Activities Interaction Program Parents Total Furnishings Care &Talking 50=.70 50=.85 Structure & Staff Score 50=.82 Routines 50=.78 50=.70 50=.43 50=.33 50=.78 .46 Classrooms The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale assesses the emotional tone, discipline style, and responsiveness of the caregiver. Table 2 displays the results of the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale and these results show that staff were "sensitive" with a rating of 3.69 on the 4-point scale. Staff were rated "not at all" harsh or detached, with mean scores of 1.17 and 1.35 respectively. Again, the mean rating of 3.69 on sensitivity is consistent with the means of 3.4 to 3.5 found in the classrooms that participated in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. TABLE 2. Mean Arnett scores for Pilot Program Classrooms 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.51 0.5 o ARNETT CAREGIVER-CHILD INTERACTION SCALE --- ----------- -~- '~--,-" Sensitive SD=.21 Harsh SD=.25 Detached SD=.27 46 Classrooms Taken together, these two assessments suggest high program quality in the Pilot Program classrooms. After reviewing results with the trained observer, the Pilot Program Professional Development Coordinator delivered feedback to the observed sites that was based on their unique ITERS-Rand Arnett results. Site specific results will be used to inform future technical assistance for each, and the overall results will also inform future professional development work throughout the Pilot Program. PHASE III The Phase III evaluation component, added as Pilot Program sites enter into their third year funding and operation, will examine the relation between child outcomes and specific programs characteristics. The Phase III evaluation will be a quasi-experimental design using a comparison group methodology and random sampling. The Pilot Early Childhood Program implemented in Oklahoma to expand and enhance services for infants and toddlers has achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality. Previous research has indicated that the quality and intensity of services similar to those delivered in Oklahoma's Pilot Program are necessary to meaningfully impact child outcomes, both in the short and long term. The Pilot Program includes an evaluation to assess classroom quality and child outcomes with the dual goal to improve services and demonstrate efficacy. Evaluation is often neglected in educational and social service programs. But, it is essential to strength programs and demonstrate efficacy. Also, it is often the key to initial, continued and additional funding. 6 PROVIDERS: YEAR 2 YEARS PARTICIPATING , PROVIDER COMMUNITIES SERVED 2006-07 2007-08 Community Action Project of Tulsa County Sand Springs, Tulsa X X Child Care Inc., Linwood Early Learning Center OKC X Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah X Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow, Catoosa, Pryor, X Wagoner Crossroads Youth & Family Services Lawton, Seminole X X Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee X Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa X Kids'Ranch Broken Bow X Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers, Hugo, Idabel X X r- Margaret Hudson Program Broken Arrow X Play 'N Station Harrah X - Sunbeam Family Services Oklahoma City X X I---- Tri County Technology Center Child Development Center Bartlesville X Turn the Page Enid X X United Community Action Program Bristow, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, X X Stillwater, Tulsa 8 9 COMPARISON: YEAR 1 & YEAR 2 YEAR-END DATA • T ' • Classroom Description End of Year 1 End of Year 2 Number of SPPClassrooms 90 139 Number of Expanded Classrooms 37 68 Number of Enhanced Classrooms 53 71 Number of Children Enrolled 720 1,204 Number of Children Enrolled in Expanded Classrooms 296 614 Number of Children Enrolled in Enhanced Classrooms 424 590 Number of Lead Teachers (BA degree) 71 105 Number of Teacher Assistants (AA degree) 36 53 Number of Classroom Aides (High School degree and CDA) 42 108 Number of Classroom Aides in process of acquiring CDAl 35 42 Number of Family Support Specialists (BA degree and caseload <50) 21 31 ~.T',' ~~i~iA~;tgended - - . ' ..~ ..... .•••~ < ; Advanced/ Continuation Training 2 -- 124 Leadership Training 50 63 Observation and Assessment Training 60 101 1 FORMAL REPORTING TOOL USED IN YEAR 1 DID NOT CAPTURE CLASSROOM AIDES IN PROCESS OF ACQUIRING CDAS. AS PERMITTED BY PROGRAM GUIDELINES. 2 ATIENDANCE AT TULSA CONTINUATION TRAINING WAS LOWER THAN EXPECTED DUE TO ICE STORM. 10 11 BUDGET SUMMARY: YEAR 2 & YEAR 3 BUDGET SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3 ; .... YEAR TWO YEAR THREE , (Actual) (Budget) " Revenue State Revenue -Pilot Program $10,000,000 $10,000,000 George Kaiser Family Foundation $12,210,925 $14,703,961 Chesapeake Corporation $500,000 $500,000 Tom Ward $500,000 $500,000 Samson Resources $300,000 $300,000 ClTGO -- $250,000 CDBG funds and NWA Loan $360,000 $2,609,000 Match- secured by participating providers $1,614,110 $1,093,064 Total Revenue $25,485,035 $29,956,025 Administrative Expenses Wages and Benefits $524,260 $710,749 Miscellaneous $35,599 $33,681 Administrative Allocation $967,270 $1,386,736 I Total Administrative Expenses $1,527,129 $2,131,166 Operating Expenses Wages and Benefits $4,675,483 $7,604,047 Facilities Expenses $662,314 $698,483 Supplies $658,636 $1,136,165 Educational Contracts $164,826 $172,800 Other Contracts $7,363,003 $9,360,303 Meals/Travel/Training $547,059 $752,599 Miscellaneous $120,837 $153,671 Capital and One-Time Expenses $9,765,748 $7,946,791 Total Operating Expenses $23,957,906 $27,824,859 Grand Total Expenses $25,485,035 $29,956,025 12 13 PROVIDERS: YEAR 3 YEAR 3 PROJECTED SERVICES ~;t'l'AI']i;J Fmmm:! l@mt!1~tll@'] ~1tlu;m Ltfil!'1~hli!l ~ - rnaIWI·l@iJ It'ItMjt']~~1 ItlXojtlm ItIXlhjjtl]~~1 ItlXUitlm - rm ••__ ,,_-"" _____ ~ _____ .-----~ - -- ---------- or-- - Community Action Project of Tulsa County 608 Tulsa 535 Sand Springs 73 Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah 16 Tahlequah 16 32 Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow 17 Broken Arrow 24 124 Catoosa 17 Catoosa 16 Pryor 25 --- .-- - Wagoner 25 Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee 32 32 --- Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa 16 Tulsa 17 33 Kids'Ranch Broken Bow 16 Broken Bow 17 33 - -- Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers 24 48 Hugo 12 ---- -- Idabel 12 Margaret Hudson Program 24 Broken Arrow 24 -- Sunbeam Family Services OKC 32 OKC 8 168 OKC 128 0- - Tri County Technology Center Child Bartlesville 16 Development Center 16 .- Turn the Page Enid 32 32 -- United Community Action Program 133 Tulsa 16 Sand Springs 12 Sapulpa 49 Bristow 8 - Stillwater 48 -Union- Public Schools- 204 Tulsa 204 577 Enhanced 910 Expanded -- _ r'" • .~_ j ~--"- 1,487 Total Slots 14 1.5 ·.
Object Description
Description
Title | Pilot Early Childhood |
OkDocs Class# | E1850.3 P643e 2007/08 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Deposited by agency in print; scanned by Oklahoma Department of Libraries 7/2011 |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | E 1850.3 P643e 2007/08 c.1 State of Oklahoma ~.'.~~~. :.....Pilot Early Childhood Program Community Action Proll.'Ct I •• •••• .. . ..... .. ••• YEAR 2 SUMMARY INTRO The number of children served through the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program during Year 2 increased by more than 67% over Year 1. Total classrooms grew from 91 (June 2007) to 139 (June 2008) and more than 1,200 at-risk children were served during the second year of operation. The early childhood education providers participating in this program during Year 2 include 15 agencies operating in more than 20 communities across Oklahoma. Ten providers are non-profits (seven of whom operate Early Head Start and/or Head Start programs), four providers are private/for-profits, and one is a Tribal government. • provider operations and eligibility, • staffing, • training, and • program evaluation Throughout Year 2 of the program, the 15 participating providers were monitored for compliance using the original goals as stated by Community Action Project of Tulsa County, Inc., (CAPTe)in its proposal. These goals include improving the quality of early education services provided in Oklahoma and expanding capacity to serve additional low-income children from birth through age three by implementing high standards for: During Year 1 of the Pilot Program, CAPTCfocused mainly on program implementation and standard compliance. At year-end the two primary outcomes to report included: (1) implementation/growth at each program, and (2) compliance with program requirements and expectations. The focus of Year 2 work shifted toward assessingprogram quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. While monitoring compliance of all standard program requirements continued during the year, a greater focus was placed on each provider's progress in raising the quality of their program. Major components for improving quality throughout the program year included: continued training, staffing structure improvements, developing and reaching professional development benchmarks, preparing for and meeting National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYe)accreditation requirements, and networking among providers to gain knowledge from other similar programs. As outlined in this report, the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program has achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality. TRAINING LEADERSHIP TRAINING Sixty-three supervisors, managers, site directors, executive directors, mentor teachers and other supervisory staff attended 14 hours of Leadership Training. The focus of the Leadership Training, presented by WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies, was to provide upper management and others responsible for directing operations and staff with an overview of the fundamentals of the PITC(Program for Infant/Toddler Care) philosophy and the six essential policies: primary care, small groups, continuity of care, individualized care, cultural responsiveness, and inclusion of children with special needs. Tips on staffing for consistency and hiring practices were included. The Leadership Training emphasized the role of the program leaders in assuring the implementation of the PITCprogram policy recommendations, as they support the work of direct service staff. INFANT/TODDLER CARE TRAINING Forty-eight teachers and staff completed 48 hours of training (Modules I-IV) in the WestEd philosophy of responsive, respectful, and relationship-based infant/toddler care. Approximately 100 additional staff participated in one or more modules. Oklahoma PITCModules I-IV were presented roughly one month apart by Betty Blaize and Carol Aghayan of 2 Excellence for Children. Training was provided in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and each four module series was repeated in both locations to accommodate staff hired later in the year. Oklahoma PITCconsisted of the following: • Module I: Social -Emotional Development • Module II: Group Care& Environments • Module III: Learning & Development • Module IV: Cultures, Families, & Providers Basedon the trainers' prior experience in the state, sessionswere specifically designed for Oklahoma caregivers/ teachers. Additionally, to ensure effective transfer of child development knowledge to actual practice in centers, trainers used adult learning techniques and allowed for individual learning styles. Overall feedback from Oklahoma PITCattendees was very positive. ADVANCED / CONTINUATION TRAINING Thirty-five teachers and staff completed 28 hours of WestEd Continuation Training, comprised of Advanced Training I and II. Approximately 60 additional staff participated in either part I or part II of the training. The training was provided by the WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies and was presented in two separate two-day sessions (two days for part I and two days for part II). Both parts were held once in Tulsa and again in Oklahoma City. The Continuation Training was designed for teachers who had completed all four modules and provided an opportunity for participants to reflect and expand on knowledge acquired through previous PITCtrainings, such as the implementation of PITe's six essential policies. As requested by Year 1 feedback from attendees, this training also specifically addressed: serving children with disabilities or other special needs and their families; and discipline and guidance, particularly for children with mental health issues. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Participating providers received classroom-based training and technical assistance.The purpose of technical assistance was to support the PITCtraining received and to facilitate the translation of the PITC philosophy into practice. Providers participating in the first year of the program were visited by Excellencefor Children technical assistance specialists. On-site technical assistance for second year providers was delivered by WestEd infant/toddler specialists. Both Excellence for Children and WestEd included the following in their approach to technical assistance: teacher-child interactions and respectful, responsive, relationship-based care. Classroom staff also received information/assistance to support their work earning or maintaining their NAEYCAccreditation. When appropriate, some Head Start/Early Head Start Performance Standards were also discussed or focused on. First year sites were visited twice, with significantly enhanced care noted in most second visits. Second year sites were visited three time throughout the year. All technical assistance visits resulted in written reports which were shared with each provider and with CAPTe. FAMILY SUPPORT TRAINING Thirty family support staff and site management level staff attended a one-day seminar training provided by CAPTe.Family Support Training was not included in the initial Year 2 training plan; however, several providers requested additional guidance in this area and it was determined that a training event might be the best way to address all requests. Training was led by staff from Family & Children's Services, CAPTe'spartner agency for the delivery of family supportive services. The training was held in Tulsa and included topics such as building relationships with families, community partnerships, family assessments, resource and referral ideas, time management skills for staff and documentation and confidentiality. A good amount of time was also allowed for questions and answers. Evaluation forms were provided and responses from attendees indicated that (1) participants felt the training was very useful and informative, and (2) they had a better sense of direction in terms of the role family supportive services plays in the Pilot Program. Information shared through the training drew largely from the services provided through F&CS/CAPTC; however, much emphasis was placed on the fact that each program should provide family supportive services based on the needs of families in their area/communities. The training also gave attendees the opportunity to network with peers from acrossthe state with varying education, experience and knowledge. 3 BUDGET PLANNING MEETING Another training added in Year 2 was a one-day financial meeting, which was held in late March. Much like family supportive services, many questions had been posed about financial processes, therefore, a meeting was arranged to address all requests at one time. With Year 3 financial information due soon, the main topics of the meeting included: Year 3 budgeting, application and invoicing processes.Two to three staff members from each provider group attended. Forms to be used were presented to the group and completed sample forms were also provided. CAPTe'sController presented the information and answered questions during and after the session. OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT TRAINING A total of 101 teachers and staff attended training sessionsin observation and assessment using the Creative Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers and Two's web-based application. The three-day sessionswere offered in three locations to accommodate statewide participants: Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Hugo. The training consisted of two full days of classroom instruction in observation, assessment and the Developmental Continuum for Infants, Toddlers and Two's, and one-day of computer lab instruction in CreativeCurriculum.net. Sessions/instructors were contracted through Teaching Strategies, Inc. The purpose of the Observation and Assessment Training was to give staff entering data into CreativeCurriculum.net the direction needed to use the tool and also to provide them with the education necessaryto make/enter child assessments. In addition to these sessions, ongoing technical assistance was available through Pilot Program staff, and some programs requested/received further on-site training. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES During Year 2, additional staff joined the Pilot Program team: a Project Assistant, a second Program Coordinator and a Professional Development Coordinator. The Professional Development Coordinator and Program Coordinators had ongoing contact with participating providers and were easily able to identify any concerns or needs. The Professional Development Coordinator's role primarily focused on supporting providers with training, technical assistance and accreditation, while the Program Coordinators' main responsibilities involved monitoring and compliance. In their different roles, they were able to come together as a team to share information and better serve the providers using a multi-disciplinary approach. Because all of the participating providers have unique strengths or obstacles, this approach allowed the team to work with each at the appropriate level and to focus on key components for improving quality. Providers and Pilot Program staff worked together throughout the program year to add trainings, track participation at required trainings, and to review and sometimes modify staffing patterns at provider locations. Pilot Program staff worked with providers to establish professional development plans and linked programs with resources to assist with these plans. Examples include: accessing the Scholars for Excellence in Child Care (Scholars Program), receiving CEUsfor PITCtraining and other trainings, providing information and guidance for obtaining CDAs and Certificates of Mastery, referring to technology centers for training needs, and encouraging programs/staff to take advantage the various types of assistance and services available through the Center for Early Childhood Professional Development (CECPD). To assist with meeting yearly participation requirements for obtaining NAEYCaccreditation, providers received on-site technical assistance from the Professional Development Coordinator. Technical assistance and referrals to area child care resource and referral centers resulted in visible progress. Providers are working through the application process, creating portfolios, and making program improvements. Eachis on target to obtain NAEYCaccreditation as scheduled. PROGRAM EVALUATION As grantee for the Pilot Program, CAPTC had dual goals for program evaluation: To inform continuous program improvement and to document child and family outcomes. Consistent with these goals, CAPTCcollaborated with the Early Childhood Education Institute at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, led by Diane M. Horm, Ph.D., to design and implement evaluation for the program. The resulting evaluation plan is a three-phase, long-term program evaluation. This three-phase evaluation plan is designed to answer three main questions: • PhaseI: Are the participating providers meeting Pilot Program requirements and expectations? 4 • Phase II: What is the quality of the Pilot Program-funded classrooms? • Phase III: What is the impact of the Pilot Program on children? PHASE I Phase I, implemented with Pilot Program sites starting in their first year of operation, documents program establishment and growth. In essence, it answers the question: Are the Pilot Program sites meeting requirements and expectations? As discussed previously, the number of classrooms and children served increased over the first two years of the Pilot Program. It did, however, take longer than anticipated for new classrooms to open, but once open, classrooms were typically fully enrolled. Conversations with providers revealed that the difficulty in opening classrooms tended to be due to construction delays. In terms of staffing, there were four bachelor degreed lead teachers on average for every five classrooms and the average family support worker had a caseload of 21 families; both of these measures show a higher standard than required by the Pilot Program. Of the staff hired without an associate or bachelor degree, one-quarter did not currently have a CDA and were required to obtain one within a year. This finding speaks to the difficulty in hiring qualified staff already holding a CDA. Relative to professional development provided by the Pilot Program, information collected for Phase I evaluation did show that teachers and other staff attended training as required. PHASE II The focus of Phase II evaluation, implemented with Pilot Program sites in their second year of operation, shifted toward assessing program quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. The major question was: What is the quality of Pilot Program-funded classrooms? Staff from the Ou-Tulsa Early Childhood Education Institute randomly selected 46 of the 60 (77%) classrooms and administered the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised or ITERS-R and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. A specially trained observer spent at least four hours of observation time per classroom while administering these measures. The ITERS-R has been widely used to assess the quality of group care for infants and toddlers. The instrument was used in the 2006 Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, a rigorous random-assignment evaluation involving 3,001 children and families in 17 Early Head Start Programs. As noted in Table 1, Pilot Program ITERS-Rresults indicate the overall level of quality was "good" (a rating of 5 is "good" quality), across the 46 Pilot Program classrooms observed. The overall mean of 5, for Pilot Program classrooms is very similar to the mean found in the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Means ratings on five of the seven ITERS-R subscales indicate "good" to "excellent" quality for Pilot Program classrooms. Two subscales, personal care routines and program structure, received mean ratings below 5 or "good." Due to instrument design, lower means ratings in these two subscales (e.g. diapering, hand washing, and playground time and supervision) are not unusual. Table 1. Mean ITERS-Rscores for Pilot Program Classrooms ITERS-R 5 8 6 4 2 o 5pace& Personal Listening Activities Interaction Program Parents Total Furnishings Care &Talking 50=.70 50=.85 Structure & Staff Score 50=.82 Routines 50=.78 50=.70 50=.43 50=.33 50=.78 .46 Classrooms The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale assesses the emotional tone, discipline style, and responsiveness of the caregiver. Table 2 displays the results of the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale and these results show that staff were "sensitive" with a rating of 3.69 on the 4-point scale. Staff were rated "not at all" harsh or detached, with mean scores of 1.17 and 1.35 respectively. Again, the mean rating of 3.69 on sensitivity is consistent with the means of 3.4 to 3.5 found in the classrooms that participated in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. TABLE 2. Mean Arnett scores for Pilot Program Classrooms 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.51 0.5 o ARNETT CAREGIVER-CHILD INTERACTION SCALE --- ----------- -~- '~--,-" Sensitive SD=.21 Harsh SD=.25 Detached SD=.27 46 Classrooms Taken together, these two assessments suggest high program quality in the Pilot Program classrooms. After reviewing results with the trained observer, the Pilot Program Professional Development Coordinator delivered feedback to the observed sites that was based on their unique ITERS-Rand Arnett results. Site specific results will be used to inform future technical assistance for each, and the overall results will also inform future professional development work throughout the Pilot Program. PHASE III The Phase III evaluation component, added as Pilot Program sites enter into their third year funding and operation, will examine the relation between child outcomes and specific programs characteristics. The Phase III evaluation will be a quasi-experimental design using a comparison group methodology and random sampling. The Pilot Early Childhood Program implemented in Oklahoma to expand and enhance services for infants and toddlers has achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality. Previous research has indicated that the quality and intensity of services similar to those delivered in Oklahoma's Pilot Program are necessary to meaningfully impact child outcomes, both in the short and long term. The Pilot Program includes an evaluation to assess classroom quality and child outcomes with the dual goal to improve services and demonstrate efficacy. Evaluation is often neglected in educational and social service programs. But, it is essential to strength programs and demonstrate efficacy. Also, it is often the key to initial, continued and additional funding. 6 PROVIDERS: YEAR 2 YEARS PARTICIPATING , PROVIDER COMMUNITIES SERVED 2006-07 2007-08 Community Action Project of Tulsa County Sand Springs, Tulsa X X Child Care Inc., Linwood Early Learning Center OKC X Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah X Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow, Catoosa, Pryor, X Wagoner Crossroads Youth & Family Services Lawton, Seminole X X Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee X Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa X Kids'Ranch Broken Bow X Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers, Hugo, Idabel X X r- Margaret Hudson Program Broken Arrow X Play 'N Station Harrah X - Sunbeam Family Services Oklahoma City X X I---- Tri County Technology Center Child Development Center Bartlesville X Turn the Page Enid X X United Community Action Program Bristow, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, X X Stillwater, Tulsa 8 9 COMPARISON: YEAR 1 & YEAR 2 YEAR-END DATA • T ' • Classroom Description End of Year 1 End of Year 2 Number of SPPClassrooms 90 139 Number of Expanded Classrooms 37 68 Number of Enhanced Classrooms 53 71 Number of Children Enrolled 720 1,204 Number of Children Enrolled in Expanded Classrooms 296 614 Number of Children Enrolled in Enhanced Classrooms 424 590 Number of Lead Teachers (BA degree) 71 105 Number of Teacher Assistants (AA degree) 36 53 Number of Classroom Aides (High School degree and CDA) 42 108 Number of Classroom Aides in process of acquiring CDAl 35 42 Number of Family Support Specialists (BA degree and caseload <50) 21 31 ~.T',' ~~i~iA~;tgended - - . ' ..~ ..... .•••~ < ; Advanced/ Continuation Training 2 -- 124 Leadership Training 50 63 Observation and Assessment Training 60 101 1 FORMAL REPORTING TOOL USED IN YEAR 1 DID NOT CAPTURE CLASSROOM AIDES IN PROCESS OF ACQUIRING CDAS. AS PERMITTED BY PROGRAM GUIDELINES. 2 ATIENDANCE AT TULSA CONTINUATION TRAINING WAS LOWER THAN EXPECTED DUE TO ICE STORM. 10 11 BUDGET SUMMARY: YEAR 2 & YEAR 3 BUDGET SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3 ; .... YEAR TWO YEAR THREE , (Actual) (Budget) " Revenue State Revenue -Pilot Program $10,000,000 $10,000,000 George Kaiser Family Foundation $12,210,925 $14,703,961 Chesapeake Corporation $500,000 $500,000 Tom Ward $500,000 $500,000 Samson Resources $300,000 $300,000 ClTGO -- $250,000 CDBG funds and NWA Loan $360,000 $2,609,000 Match- secured by participating providers $1,614,110 $1,093,064 Total Revenue $25,485,035 $29,956,025 Administrative Expenses Wages and Benefits $524,260 $710,749 Miscellaneous $35,599 $33,681 Administrative Allocation $967,270 $1,386,736 I Total Administrative Expenses $1,527,129 $2,131,166 Operating Expenses Wages and Benefits $4,675,483 $7,604,047 Facilities Expenses $662,314 $698,483 Supplies $658,636 $1,136,165 Educational Contracts $164,826 $172,800 Other Contracts $7,363,003 $9,360,303 Meals/Travel/Training $547,059 $752,599 Miscellaneous $120,837 $153,671 Capital and One-Time Expenses $9,765,748 $7,946,791 Total Operating Expenses $23,957,906 $27,824,859 Grand Total Expenses $25,485,035 $29,956,025 12 13 PROVIDERS: YEAR 3 YEAR 3 PROJECTED SERVICES ~;t'l'AI']i;J Fmmm:! l@mt!1~tll@'] ~1tlu;m Ltfil!'1~hli!l ~ - rnaIWI·l@iJ It'ItMjt']~~1 ItlXojtlm ItIXlhjjtl]~~1 ItlXUitlm - rm ••__ ,,_-"" _____ ~ _____ .-----~ - -- ---------- or-- - Community Action Project of Tulsa County 608 Tulsa 535 Sand Springs 73 Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah 16 Tahlequah 16 32 Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow 17 Broken Arrow 24 124 Catoosa 17 Catoosa 16 Pryor 25 --- .-- - Wagoner 25 Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee 32 32 --- Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa 16 Tulsa 17 33 Kids'Ranch Broken Bow 16 Broken Bow 17 33 - -- Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers 24 48 Hugo 12 ---- -- Idabel 12 Margaret Hudson Program 24 Broken Arrow 24 -- Sunbeam Family Services OKC 32 OKC 8 168 OKC 128 0- - Tri County Technology Center Child Bartlesville 16 Development Center 16 .- Turn the Page Enid 32 32 -- United Community Action Program 133 Tulsa 16 Sand Springs 12 Sapulpa 49 Bristow 8 - Stillwater 48 -Union- Public Schools- 204 Tulsa 204 577 Enhanced 910 Expanded -- _ r'" • .~_ j ~--"- 1,487 Total Slots 14 1.5 ·. |
Date created | 2011-07-05 |
Date modified | 2011-07-05 |