`

EEC Board Committee

Planning and Evaluation

Thursday, March 17, 2011

10:30pm-12:30pm

Department of Early Education and Care

51 Sleeper St. 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02210

AGENDA

Members of the Committee Present

Sherri Killins, EEC Commissioner (Ex-Officio)

Carol Craig O’Brien, Committee Chairperson

Eleonora Villegas-Reimers, Board Member

Members of Board Present

Joan Wasser-Gish

EEC Staff Present

Jennifer Louis

Anita Moeller

Lorenzo Mateo

Presenters

Wendy Robeson from Wellesley Center for Women

Rod Southwick

The meeting was called to order at: 10:35am.

Welcome and Introductions

Committee members were welcomed.

Routine Business:

Minutes

Members had an opportunity to review the minutes. Members requested two corrections were made for the February 17, 2011 minutes.

Disclosures

Carol Craig O’Brien disclosed that she works for the Westwood Public Schools as an Early Childhood Coordinator and is a recipient of a CFCE grant and 262 grants and interested in future funding.

Eleonora Villegas-Reimers disclosed that she works for Wheelock College who is a recipient of EEC grant funds.

Commissioner/Committee Updates

Discussion

SAC Statewide Assessment Design

(Handout- PowerPoint- Options for implementing a Massachusetts Early Childhood Needs Assessment, charts- SLDS Features, Appendix C 2010 State SLDS Grantee for E.C. Child, Program and Workforce Data, State chart, Goals and Constructs for Administrative data, Provider Survey, and Parent Survey, Assessment Tool packet)

Wendy Robeson from Wellesley Center for Women and Rod Southwick presented where they are in the development of the Needs Assessment models. Rod Southwick presented on the use of Administrative Data in other states. His research found that three models are being used by other states. The models are states using point in time measure, Maryland’s longitudinal model of assessing progress of children at Kindergarten to measure their proficiency in developmental domains, and the Pennsylvania model linking child, program and teacher specific data across agencies. Committee Chair Carol Craig O’Brien was interested in knowing why these states were chosen to highlight. Rod Southwick explained that Pennsylvania uses a unique identifier, collects data, while Maryland depends on the evaluation of children rather than administrative data. Additionally Maryland does comparisons between children with various experiences before entering Kindergarten. Maryland looks at whether children with experiences in Head Start do better than children who attended preschool vs. those who did not have any early childhood experiences.

Wendy Robeson presented to the administrative data handout to the Committee detailing the constructs, goals, inputs to the needs assessments, potential uses/links, potential analyses and any further comments. Next Wendy Robeson shared with the Committee the handouts concerning the provider survey and parent survey. These handouts detailed the constructs, goals, potential variables, measures/uses, sample questions and the appendix location if included in the assessment packet.

Wendy Robeson asked the Committee for their feedback on what is most important to the Committee to concentrate on first. Wendy Robeson asked if the Committee is interested in for example teacher satisfaction, or why they leave the early education field. Commissioner Killins stated that she is more interested in skills and compensation for teachers than why they are leaving.

The Committee reviewed what was discussed at the last meeting that the surveys would be over a three year cycle with one group being surveyed one year, the second group, the next year and the third group the year after that.

Commissioner Killins was interested in finding out how parents feel about the Governor’s agenda on education and the QRIS system. The Committee thought the parent survey should try to understand what needs are currently being met and what families are doing now and what families would like in an ideal world. It is also important to survey family demographics including questions about housing stability and parental depression. Committee Chair Carol Craig O’Brien suggested to the Committee to be careful of the vocabulary used. For example, instead of using parents we should be thinking of families since there are many types of family composition. This is also important when the survey talks about early education and care and any acronyms we use that the public may not be familiar with. Though the Committee conversation has been focused on early education and care, Commissioner Killins reminded the Committee that the needs assessment is about child well-being in the context of the community and not just about care. Committee MemberEleonora Villegas-Reimers thought it was important to learn the number of hours the caregivers spent with the child and the relationship the caregiver has to the child. Board Member Joan Wasser Gish suggested to the Committee that it would be helpful to know what a child’s schedule is on a typical Tuesday or Friday (for example).

Commissioner Killins pointed out to the Committee that it would be helpful to understand families’ perceptions of quality and their definition of quality. This would need to be unbundled from the definition in QRIS.

From the program, educator perspective, the Committee agreed that most of the communication has been with program directors and not directly with the educators. The Committee agreed that the survey should entail similar themes about demand and needs for educators as will be asked of parents. In addition, Board Member Joan Wasser Gish thought it would be important to gain an understanding of what would make a difference to educators to keep them in the field (compensation, working conditions, opportunities for professional growth, etc.). Committee MemberEleonora Villegas-Reimers agreed adding it would be helpful to know what incentives might be needed.

Board Member Joan Wasser Gish suggested to the Committee 4 sections for the surveys: demographics, getting at program quality through QRIS, strengthening families (community conditions that support well-being) and demand (understanding the needs currently being met, what families are doing now, and what families would like in an ideal world). Commissioner Killins noted that information is needed as to what families aren’t getting in their current early education and care arrangement. Committee Chair Carol Craig O’Brien reminded the Committee that EEC and the Board don’t know what families want but we do know what EEC wants and provides for families. Are the services being provided make a difference in child well-being? Commissioner Killins agreed that we want to know what do families in Massachusetts want versus what is offered to them not only by EEC but through other services such as parks, libraries, etc.

Next Steps

Wellesley will provide EEC Staff Member Jennifer Louis a summary which will be distributed to the Committee. Comments will be sent back to Wellesley.

Board Member Joan Wasser Gish noted that demand is very broad in scope and would like recommendations on how to structure this topic.

Wendy Robeson will return in April with recommendations.

Status Update and Plan of Planning and Evaluation Priorities and Projects

(Handout- Department of Early Education and Care Research Projects)

Committee members were given updated copies of the projects.

CCDF State Plan 2012

(Handout – None)

Tabled to April meeting

Institutions of Higher Education Mapping Project: Phase II- Next Steps

(Handout –None)

Tabled to April meeting

Early Childhood Education Grant(Handout –None)

The Early Childhood Education Grant will be moved to the Research and Communications Committee.

Defining the Seamless System and its Interconnectivity and Effectiveness of Early Childhood System Initiatives

(Handout –Access- An Overview of the Planned Presentation to the EEC Board- For Discussion by EEC Planning and Evaluation Committee)

EEC Staff Member Anita Moeller presented to the Committee her presentation on Access. Staff Member Anita Moeller walked the Committee through the presentation she will be presenting to the Board in April. Key questions on access were described to the Committee. The key questions are as follows:

  • What do families and children currently have access to?
  • Are there differences in the needs of different demographics?
  • How much is enough? Can there be too much?
  • What is the impact of absenteeism on those that have access?
  • What is the relationship between access and quality?
  • What does this say about how EEC should prioritize its work?

Staff Member Anita Moellerdescribe that evidence-based answers to these questions are only beginning to emerge.Staff Member Anita Moeller referenced the article by Zaslow, Anderson, Redd, Wessel, Tarullo, and Burhinal (2010) titled Quality Dosage Thresholds, and Features in Early Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature. Commissioner Killins was interested in knowing if the research on behavior issues is mediated by group size and ratios.

Staff member Anita Moeller presented the Committee with data specific to Massachusetts. She presented finding about children receiving early education and care including the percentage receiving early education and care from someone other than a parent at least once a week, the number of providers children receive regular early education and care from and the average days a week children receive early education and care. The Committee was presented with charts from the National Center for Children in Poverty for the following points:

  • Young children by income;
  • Exposure to multiple risk factors among young children;
  • Children in low-income families in Massachusetts by race
  • Parents’ Employment Status in Massachusetts by Income level
  • Percent of children who are low-income by parental education
  • Children in Single-Parent families in Massachusetts by Income level
  • Pregnancy Rates Among Adolescents Aged 15-19 by Age Group per 1,000
  • Type of Area of Residence Among Adolescents Aged 12-18

Staff Members Anita Moeller and Lorenzo Mateo, with assistance from Safi Shams of University of Massachusetts Lowell presented graphs using WEAVE to depict EEC data on access. Anita walked the Committee through maps and graphs of teen slots vs. teen births, supportive care, and population vs. home visiting needs assessment scoring (including the 17 communities in need).

Following the presentation the Committee provided Anita feedback on the presentation as well as suggestions on what WEAVE graphs and maps to show at the Board presentation in April.

Committee Chair Carol Craig O’Brien was interested in knowing the age groups described in the charts from the National Center for Children in Poverty. Commissioner Killins suggested removing slide 26. She also suggested as a comparison to get information on the education of all families not just low-income families shown on slide 23.

Both Committee Chair Carol Craig O’Brien and Commissioner Killins would like to see where the children zero to 5 live with regard to urban, suburban and rural communities. Staff member Anita Moeller will work on this using census data.

Staff member Anita Moeller asked the Committee for suggestions as to what would be the most helpful for the Board to see in April. Commissioner Killins would like to see where contract providers are throughout the state similar to the map that was shown on vouchers. Staff member Anita said she is working on this slide and will be able to do a map combining both voucher and contract providers. Staff member Anita Moeller is working on a longitudinal look of licensed programs and capacity back to 2005. This is in the process of being completed. Commissioner Killins thought it would be helpful for the Board to see a graph and map of low performing schools vs. access to early education and care vs. the population of young children as well as locations of museums and libraries. Staff member Anita Moeller will continue to work on this.

Committee Member Eleonora Villegas-Reimers thought the maps would be helpful for the Board meeting. Additionally she thought that samples should be shown but other data that is available should be mentioned. Board Member Joan Wasser Gish thought it would be helpful for the Board to hear how WEAVE might be used in the future. She thought that as decisions come to the Board it would be helpful to have a data basis and see it geographically.

Next Steps

Staff member Anita Moeller will provide a list of indicators to the Committee for their feedback of what graphs and maps would be useful for the Board presentation.

The next meeting of the Planning and Evaluation Committee is April 21 at EEC’s Boston Office from10:00am-12:00pm.

Agenda items:

  • CCDF State Plan 2012
  • Institutions of Higher Education Mapping Project: Phase II- Next Steps
  • SAC Needs Assessment
  • QRIS grant (and expansion for funding FY2012 grants)
  • Professional Qualifications Registry
  • Board Priority assigned to Committee to build upon the system of Early Education and Care

The Committee convened at 12:45pm

1