www.earlylearningtexas.org quarterly meeting september 29, 2011

www.earlylearningtexas.orgwww.earlylearningtexas.org

Quarterly MeetingSeptember 29, 2011

www.earlylearningtexas.org 2

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM - Welcome

9:00 AM – 12:30 PM - School Readiness Discussion

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM - Lunch (status report during lunch)

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM - Data Project Discussion

3:00 PM – 3:45 PM - Workforce Items

3:45 PM – 4:00 PM - Goodbyes and next steps

Agenda

www.earlylearningtexas.org

Imagine it is the year 2015, you are in a building downtown, the elevator opens, and into the elevator steps the Govenor. He recognizes you and says, “I hear that TELC really moved the needle forward on improving school readiness. Looking back on that experience, what was your greatest ‘ah-hah’ moment on the Council?” You have only 30 seconds to answer his question before the elevator door opens and he leaves.

How did you answer him?

Getting Started


Defining School Readiness


Agenda Topic Begin EndGetting started 8:30 8:45Chair's perspective 8:45 8:55Deliverables & process 8:55 9:00Selection criteria 9:00 9:20White Paper overview 9:20 9:40Break 9:40 9:55Definitions to consider 9:55 10:15Group Instructions 10:15 10:20Group work 10:20 11:00Group report outs 11:00 11:20Selection & review 11:20 11:40Next steps 11:40 11:55Closing 11:55 12:00

Morning Agenda


Take Off

Downloads

Group Work

Pit Stop

Landing

Process


• Council’s purpose for a school readiness definition

• White Paper as the resource document• Criteria for selection of a Council definition • Best-fit definition

Deliverables


1. Purposeful- meets the needs of the grant projects

2. Current- aligned with current thinking in the field of early childhood

3. Understandable- users can easily understand it

4. Measureable- can be realistically measured in a timely & affordable manner

5. “Good enough”- Though not perfect, it aligns with the overall values & direction of the organization that I represent

6. Other…

Selection Criteria


Defining School Readiness

National Trends in School Readiness Definitions


• Background Information• Trends in Definitions

– Type of definition– Kindergarten entry– Individualization of learning– Ready children, families, schools, and communities– Child development domains– School readiness indicators– Adoption and implementation

Agenda


• First national definition of school readiness– National Education Goals Panel (1991)

• Currently, 21 state definitions– At least 3 in development

• Updates are rare• Kindergarten readiness vs. school

readiness

Background


• Vision statements− Maryland (2000), Texas (2003), Kentucky (2010)

• Skill sets for children− Georgia, West Virginia (2008), Louisiana (2011)

• Family, school, and community supports− North Carolina (2007) and Colorado (2008)

• Fusion models− Wisconsin (2003) and Virginia (2008)

Trends


• Kindergarten Entry− Kindergarten eligibility − Wisconsin (2003), New Mexico (in development)

• Individualization of Learning− NAEYC− Maryland (2000), West Virginia (2008)

Trends


• Ready Children, Families, Schools, and Communities − North Carolina (2007) and Virginia (2008)

• National Education Goals Panel (1991)− School readiness is children’s readiness for school, school’s

readiness for children, and family and community supports and services that contribute to children’s readiness for school success.

• National School Readiness Indicators Initiative (2005)– Ready Child Equation:

Ready Families + Ready Communities + Ready Schools = Children Ready for School

Trends


• Child Development Domains

Trends

NEGP• Physical and motor

development• Social and emotional

development• Approaches to learning• Language development• Cognitive development

Head Start• Physical development and health• Social and emotional development• Approaches to learning• Language development• Literacy knowledge and skills• Mathematics knowledge and skills• Science knowledge and skills• Creative arts expression• Logic and reasoning• Social studies knowledge and skills• English language development, for ELL

students


• School Readiness Indicators− Children’s skills− Family, school, and community supports

Trends


• State departments of education• Legislative mandates• State Advisory Councils

− Kentucky− Tennessee− Oklahoma− New Mexico

Adoption and Implementation


• 24 states with definitions• Type of definition

– Vision statements– Indicator-driven definitions– Support systems– Fusion models

• Trends in definitions

Key points


Definitions to Consider


• Texas• West Virginia• Virginia• Maryland• Louisiana

Alternative Definitions to Consider


• Vision statements− Maryland (2000), Texas (2003), Kentucky (2010)

• Skill sets for children− Georgia, West Virginia (2008), Louisiana (2011)

• Family, school, and community supports− North Carolina (2007) and Colorado (2008)

• Fusion models− Wisconsin (2003) and Virginia (2008)

Trends


Texas Definition of School Readiness (2003)

Children being ready to succeed by being able to function completely in a school environment in the areas of early literacy, early math, and social skills as objectively measured by Children's Learning Institute approved assessments.

Texas School Ready!

Vision statement

With other ECE initiatives


West Virginia Definition of Kindergarten Readiness (2008)

West Virginia defines kindergarten readiness as a stage of transition that encompasses the child’s various learning experiences and general knowledge, physical well-being, social and emotional development, and familiarity and ease with expressing themselves and understanding language. Children develop holistically and at an individual rate. As a result, children enter school with varied levels of skill and learning experiences. These variances are further impacted by the resources children have access to prior to entering school including home, family and community supports.

Since each child’s degree of readiness differs and is highly individualized, kindergarten readiness also entails the capacity of schools to be prepared to serve all children effectively regardless of a child’s individual developmental level in each of the five developmental domains of school readiness. The five developmental domains of school readiness are:

• Health and physical development,• Social and emotional development,• Language development and communication,• Cognition and general knowledge, and• A child’s individual approaches to learning.

Kindergarten readiness

Developmental domains

Support systems


Virginia Definition of School Readiness (2008)

“School readiness” describes the capabilities of children, their families, schools, and communities that will best promote student success in kindergarten and beyond. Each component – children, families, schools and communities – plays an essential role in the development of school readiness. No one component can stand on its own.• Ready Children. A ready child is prepared socially, personally, physically, and intellectually within the developmental domains addressed in Virginia’s six Foundation Blocks for Early Learning: literacy, mathematics, science, history and social science, physical and motor development, and personal and social development. Children develop holistically; growth and development in one area depends upon development in other areas.

• Ready Families. A ready family has adults who understand they are the most important people in the child’s life and take responsibility for the child’s school readiness through direct, frequent, and positive involvement and interest in the child. Adults recognize their role as the child’s first and most important teacher, providing steady and supportive relationships, ensuring safe and consistent environments, promoting good health, and fostering curiosity, excitement about learning, determination, and self-control.

• Ready Schools. A ready school accepts all children and provides a seamless transition to a high-quality learning environment by engaging the whole community. A ready school welcomes all children with opportunities to enhance and build confidence in their skills, knowledge, and abilities. Children in ready schools are led by skilled teachers, who recognize, reinforce, and extend children’s strengths and who are sensitive to cultural values and individual differences.

• Ready Communities. A ready community plays a crucial part in supporting families in their role as primary stewards of children’s readiness. Ready communities, including businesses, faith based organizations, early childhood service providers, community groups and local governments, work together to support children's school and long term success by providing families affordable access to information, services, high quality child care, and early learning opportunities.

Fusion model


Support systems

Indicators


Maryland Definition of School Readiness (2000)

School readiness is the state of early development that enables an individual child to engage in and benefit from first grade learning experiences.

Oldest state definition

Vision statement

With other ECE initiatives


Louisiana Definition of Kindergarten Readiness (2011)

At the beginning of kindergarten, it is expected that children will demonstrate:• Cognitive abilities, which include knowledge and skills in:

oearly literacy, such as phonological awareness, print concepts, alphabetic understanding vocabulary, listening comprehension, and emergent writingobasic numeracy concepts, such as rote counting and number awareness, sorting, classifying, comparing, patterning, and spatial relationships

• Basic science concepts, such as making observations, exploring the world using their senses, and using appropriate scientific vocabulary related to topics• Basic social studies concepts, such as self-awareness and their relationship to family and community, and an awareness of money and time• Response to and participation in music, movement, visual and dramatic arts experiences and activities• Abilities, either assisted or unassisted, that show an awareness of health, hygiene, and environmental hazards, in addition to gross and fine motor skills• Social and emotional competencies, including self-regulation, self-identity, self-reliance, respect for others, and interpersonal skills• Approaches to learning, such as reasoning and problem-solving, engagement, persistence, and eagerness to learn

Kindergarten readiness


Indicators


Definition Selection CriteriaBreakout Groups


Selection

Criteria

Strengths Weaknesses

Purposeful

Current

Understandable

Measureable

Good Enough


Definition Marry- fits our

criteria and we

would like it to be

explored in next

steps

Date- close fit but

we have some

issues. Could be

considered later if

necessary

Dump- without

question this is not

our definition

Existing Texas

Definition

West Virginia

Virginia

Maryland

Louisiana


• Summarize today’s work as launching point

• Research/Revise as needed• Send draft to Council in mid November 4,

2011• Council return comments by November

14, 2011• Present to the Council December 2 for

approval

Next Steps


Council Status Updates


• The third deliverable, the TOTS strategic plan, is posted on our webpage http://earlylearningtexas.org/TOTS/

• The Council will deliberate on moving to Phase II at the 9/29/2011

• JRP (Joint Requirements Plan) sessions conclude this week – the Consultant will submit the first draft of the JRP report to staff on 10/3/2011

• JAD Sessions begin 10/10/2011• Next Steps:

– Council must pick a direction for Phase II

Data

http://earlylearningtexas.org/TOTS/


• A draft scope of work for a QRIS consultant has been submitted to the Subcommittee chair – the consultant will research QRIS components and produce a draft procedural design. The Consultant will also organize and run stakeholder feedback sessions

• Next Steps:– Send draft scope of work to entire subcommittee for

feedback– Write RFP and hire consultant– Begin planning for stakeholder sessions on QRIS

QRIS


• Needs Assessment project is up and running. As you may know, the Ray Marshall Center at UT and Former State demographer, Steve Murdock are conducting this research for the Early Learning Council.

• Staff conducted second progress meeting with Ray Marshall center:• Next Steps:

– Both the Ray Marshall Center and Rice are having difficulty finding qualified people to hire for this project

– Data request from TEA will be time consuming, due to the ERC process; this may delay the project further

Needs Assessment


• 4 communities/orgs have been selected: United Way of North Texas, United Way El Paso, United Way Rio Grande Valley, United Way San Antonio

• Staff conducted a kick off webinar with the communities on 9/14/2011

• Funds have been disbursed to the communities• Sites have already begun implementing their plans• Next Steps:

– Staff will conduct a planning call with the grantees on 10/12/2011– UCLA and United Way Worldwide will conduct a TA sessions for

the grantees in San Antonio on 11/1/2011 – 11/3/2011

Texas Community Campaign for School Readiness


• This project has pulled in 25 stakeholders from across the state to create new IT ELGs for Texas;

• The IT ELGs will be aligned with PK ELGs and K• The stakeholder group created around the IT ELG met once in Austin and has

prioritized 3 key areas for work on this project:– Development of the IT ELGs.– Communications and outreach.– Professional Development efforts.

• Work groups have finalized their work plans, which are very exciting • The stakeholder groups conducted a very productive meeting on August 26, 2011 in

Austin, TX• Next Steps:

– Staff will begin working on a scope of work for an IT ELG Technical writer, which will be vetted with the subcommittee and the stakeholder group. An RFP will be issued in September

– The stakeholder group has a webinar on 10/21/2011– Staff is working on three mock-ups for a IT ELG logo

Infant and Toddlers Early Learning Guidelines


• Staff has finished breaking down all accreditation standards, and is moving on to state standards and HS standards

• We will seek full Council input on usability and definitions in the future

• Staff is investigating a the needs for creating a crosswalk tool that is modular

Crosswalk tool


• New scope of work is still being finalized with staff• Databases and other “back end” elements have been built• Web developer is currently working on the HTML code for the

registry• Next Steps:

– Finalize scope of work– Connect HTML and Database– Testing

Early Childhood Workforce Registry


• Staff has produced a third draft of the career ladder; to be discussed with the Council at the 9/29/2011 meeting

• Next Steps:– Upon approval by the subcommittee it will be

sent to the Council, then the public

Career Ladder


• The study will include 90 providers -- computer based training modules, and mentorships for 30 of the participants

• Staff at CLI has officially consented 90+ participants for the study

• Staff at CLI has officially consented all the families for the study

• Staff has begun work with Texas PBS on training modules• Next Steps:

– Select name for the project– Finish online training modules– Study is set to begin in October

Family Child Care Project


TOTS Decisions


• Head Start re-authorization act priority: develop recommendations regarding the establishment of a unified data collection system for public early childhood education and development programs and services throughout the State

• Council commits to building data system in the Grant• Grant is approved by ACF• RFP for phase I is approved and posted• Deloitte is selected• Project is started with Kick-Off webinar• Agency meetings conducted (only 50% successful)• Visioning session conducted – Council defines business questions• Data summit conducted – significant buy-in recorded according to

feedback• Strategic Plan finished: (see next slide)• Joint Requirement Planning (JRP) Sessions

TOTS History


• Inconsistent data– Data is collected and stored in a variety of formats following different naming

conventions and standards leading to additional challenges for data matching and transformations.

• Duplicate and redundant data– Similar or same data is often collected and maintained in multiple systems

creating challenges to identify and maintain a single version of truth record.

• Inaccurate or missing data – Inconsistent application of business rules when data is collected and stored

resulted in inaccurate and incomplete data in some systems. The accuracy and completeness of data has improved over time as systems evolved and matured.

• No statewide standards for data sharing– There are currently no standardized data sharing agreements, statewide data

standards or guidelines for sharing information between agencies.

Strategic case for TOTS


• Data Governance– Crucial to next step– Generates policies and procedures for how TOTS data is shared, secured, compliant with

regulatory rules– Provides organizational framework for managing TOTS– Makes rules for inter agency collaboration

• Technology– Data Models

• Data Warehouse• Federated Data Architecture• Master Data Management Hub

– Hosting• Only answerable after Joint Requirement Planning

– Unique ID • For students, programs, teachers• Critical to ensuring single version of truth• Currently different names creates obstacles for matching

Strategic Plan findings


• Integrated Data Warehouse– Original vision of TOTS– Combines data together from agency sources– Most complex to implement but answers most of TOTS business

questions• Federated Data Architecture

– TOTS becomes virtual database– Data resides in agencies, TOTS brings it together on user demand– Limited ability to answer TOTS business questions

• Master Data Management Hub– Creates unique matching IDs for agency data– Hybrid of data warehouse and federated models– Must still use data warehouse technology to provide reports/queries

TOTS Technology Models


• Joint Requirements Planning (JRP) – Concluding Sept 26

• Joint Application Design (JAD)– Beginning Oct 10

Steps Currently in Process


• Based on the strategic plan and the other inputs, we want to walk you through 3 next step scenarios for TOTS

Next Step Scenarios


• The Reinvest Scenario discontinues contract after Joint Application Design (JAD) sessions. Council makes recommendations and reinvests money.

• Next Steps:– Deliberate and decide on new options for investment of TELC funds– Seek approval for new plan of investment from ACF– Utilize the strategic plan to formulate recommendations for the state on

data systems

Reinvest Scenario


Reinvest Scenario Risks and Opportunities

Risks Opportunities

Fail to meet the original goal for data systems outlined in the grant

Don’t invest in a system no one uses – avoid hazards of implementation

State continues to lack data sharing in early childhood system

Concerns about data security are ameliorated

Fail to capitalize on opportunity to inform the future TEA state longitudinal data system with rich ECE data from all sectors

Parents and public continue to lack robust data tools to make early childhood decisions

ACF denies new priorities and data funds are returned to the Feds

Abundance of funds to potentially re-invest in other existing programs or new priorities for the Council


• The Governance Scenario discontinues contract after JAD sessions and directs resources towards forming a data governance body for Texas early childhood systems. This body would most likely be comprised of Agency decision makers and would be responsible for creating rules and norms for data sharing and data utilization.

• Next Steps:– Deliberate and decide on the Council’s role in support such a body (funding

and otherwise)– Outline the Council’s intentions and goals related to data governance and

seek approval from various agencies and participants– Deliberate and decide on new options for investments of TELC funds– Seek approval for new plan of investment from ACF– Form data governance body– Utilize data governance body’s work, as well as strategic plan to formulate

recommendations for the state on data systems– Deliberate and decide on proceeding to a build phase of TOTS, provided the

data governance body finds consensus and there is grant time remaining

Governance Scenario


Risks OpportunitiesPotentially fail to meet the original goal for data systems outlined in the grant

Provide resources and impetus for building a data governance structure and ongoing effort in Texas

State potentially continues to lack data sharing in early childhood system

Concerns about data security are ameliorated, and any future data system has precise agency driven rules for security and sharing data

Potentially fail to capitalize on opportunity to inform the future TEA state longitudinal data system with rich ECE data from all sectors

Though time is an issue, the data governance body could potentially position TOTS to integrate better with SLDS

Parents and public potentially continue to lack robust data tools to make early childhood decisions

Data governance body can take a large step forward in making TOTS a reality in a way that is mindful of agency and public concerns related to data sharing

ACF denies new priorities and data funds are returned to the Feds

Abundance of funds to potentially re-invest in other existing programs or new priorities for the Council

Difficult for TELC staff or members to manage data governance deliverables and efforts

Data governance body may perform better than Council efforts

Data governance body requires and spends funds, but produces no useful outcomes

Data governance body exceeds expectations related to outcomes

Governance Scenario Risks and Opportunities


• The bulldog scenario continues contract after JAD sessions, creating business logic models and pseudo code for the actual build of TOTS. The RFP process for the build phase of TOTS is initiated immediately.

• Next Steps:– Contractor continues work until January of 2012, producing pseudo

code and other specs for the build of TOTS– Council staff immediately begins working on RFP for phase II contractor– Council deliberates and decides on hosting parameters for TOTS:

• if UTHealth is an option, staff begins investigating UTHealth receptivity to hosting

– Council staff immediately begins working with agency representatives to hash out potential MOUs for data sharing

• May need a consultant to assist with this task

– Council staff selects vendor to build TOTS

Bulldog Scenario


Risks Opportunities

Final TOTS system is not useful or is unaligned with state interests and needs

Meet the original goal for data systems outlined in the grant; Parents and public possess robust data tools to make early childhood decisions

Concerns about data security are not ameliorated – MOU process breaks down.

Movement on TOTS encourages agencies to make efforts to find agreement on MOUs

Hosting concerns are not ameliorated – hosting options are scare or unsatisfactory; long term stability of TOTS is not feasible

Hosting agency provides a significant resource to the state and various stakeholders. TOTS is self sustaining due to its significance

TOTS consumes a significant amount of resources with little positive return on investment

TOTS is the crowning achievement of the Council

Qualified vendors for the build phase are scarce or non existent – TOTS build I impaired due to limited options for contractors

Phase II produces solutions unforeseen by Phase I and exceeds expectations

Bulldog Scenario Risks and Opportunities


• Purpose: to determine the feasibility of progressing to implementing the business requirements as outlined in the deliverables from Phase I. Phase II is defined as the implementation phase in which UTHealth will produce one or two Requests for Proposals (RFP). The first RFP will request a work-for-hire contract to create the data processing and reporting application for TOTS. The second optional RFP will request proposals for hosting the application.

• However, implementation comes with key decisions that must be made before the

Council proceeds. Or, alternatively, based on the findings from the strategic plan and the results of the decision rubric, the Council may wish to abridge or redefine exactly what Phase II is.

• The first step in moving to Phase II or an alternate Phase II is for the Council to read and review the Strategic Plan. The next step is for each member to score the following rubric; the results of the rubric will be used as data to begin the discussion and make the decision on how to proceed with the next phase of the project.

TOTS Strategic Plan Phase II Decision Criterion


• Rubric contains 5 domains• Score each question within the domains

on a 1-5 scale– 5’s are best ratings– 1’s are lowest ratings

• Turn in to staff for scoring and reporting results back to council

Decision Criteria Rubric


Workforce and Professional Development


Goals for the Workforce and PD System

Develop ECE Professional Development and Workforce Registry Systems

New Core Competencies for All ECE Professionals

Career Ladder for All ECE Professionals

Compensation Study for All ECE Professionals


• You were given a copy of the career ladder document• We need your feedback before we roll it out to the

community for feedback• Purpose:

– a tool to evaluate and chart the progress of professionals registered with the Texas Early Childhood Professional Development System, the Career Ladder will serve a key role

– A tool for administrators to set program goals through– A tool for educators to inform their professional

development

Career Ladder


Career Ladder


• Are in development• We should have draft items for you on 12/2/2011, if not

before

Core Competencies


Relationship of the Core Competencies and Career Ladder to the Professional Development System

www.earlylearningtexas.org quarterly meeting september 29, 2011

Documents