8084 group discussion wk6

Brionna Boyd 

RE: Group A Discussion - Module 4

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

1. When looking at the disaggregation and identifying groups considering diverse families and which services and or activities would support those families are important for each data analysis. Programs rely on family surveys to collect crucial data. In the management exercise the goal was to increase community resources by providing families with support and collaboration opportunities. This includes dual language learner families, those experiencing homelessness, unemployed parents, substance abuse and use homes, children in foster care and families with grandparents as head of household. In Evaluation 7 the survey requests information on family support, parent involvement activities and roles, community events and resources, and if diverse families receive language support that helps to include them in the community.  

1. The key findings that may contrast have a lot to do with what the community offers, and how families feel about it. For example, whether the program supports breastfeeding mothers, and for staff working with children who have nutritional needs have high numbers in not applicable, and some families have commented on this. However, under NAEYC health caring for this group is marked as not applicable.  

1.  Under evaluation 5 we know that the standards score for families was 93%. Families are one of our most important stakeholders. There are limited resources available to help families get services and creating an environment where families are seen as partners with change power is important. Strategic planning in the program is also extremely low. A strength is that families mostly believe that teaching staff are helping students to develop academically, and that data is being collected from assessments.  

1. Completing data management exercises through aggregation, disaggregation, and analyzing data helps to visualize how the goal and group affect the data for that subgroup and the services and activities that need to be implemented to support that group. Presenting the data in a more appealing way such as using charts would help stakeholders. So far, the data does not show that the program gives diverse families the services and community support they need amongst dual language learners, and breastfeeding mothers.  

References  

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. (n.d.). Measuring what matters: Exercises in data management-Exercise 3: Analyze and aggregate: Dig into the data. Retrieved from  https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/measuring-what-matters-exercises-03.pdf  

Bottom of Form

RESPONSE 2

RE: Group A Discussion - Module 4

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

 

Explain comparisons and trends that might exist among the key findings.

Overall, I felt the significant findings demonstrated a program focused on a quality early childhood learning environment with matched support of parents. Yokita and Brionna discussed two meaningful diagnostic assessments to support students' language and literacy development. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) gives an evaluation score that center's 4-year-olds scored in the 62nd percentile except for low-income or Spanish-speaking students. The Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) showed that the English Language Learners (ELL) were behind in oral interaction compared to English-speaking students, which measures critical skills for speaking and listening (Dickinson et al., 2001).

I am concerned because the program profile states that there are four classrooms of four-year-old students and all but three of those students are at the center between seven and nine hours. Also, another critical demographic is that 20 percent of the student population is Hispanic. I see a trend when comparing the demographics, the ELL deficiencies in language and literacy assessments, and some negative answers from parents concerning communication. With the number of hours Hispanic children spend in the center, there should not be such a gap in readiness. To increase literacy awareness among parents, early intervention is essential. Buckingham et al. (2013) examined the effects of financial status, parental education, and occupation on young children's performance. The school's early education capacity and availability are proactive pathways to energize student engagement through the models and organized conditions provided by the home. A low level of phonological awareness and oral language abilities is correlated with poor educational quality and participation in home learning and preschool.

Explain which key findings might be in contrast with each other and why.

The overall NAEYC evaluation of families was scored at 93 percent, and I was surprised that it was that high. The results indicated a need for additional resources and services for families. But, in the parent survey, when questioned, families answered positively about their students' progress. The NAEYC (n.d.-a) program standards state that children and adults should feel safe and secure at the center, and children must be able to adjust quickly to the classroom environment.

Explain how and why one key finding might be impacting (either positively or negatively) the success of another data set.

When I investigated the Program Administration Scale (PAS), I found that this evaluation gave information on the high-value factors associated with the program (Yaya-Bryson et al., 2020). The significant findings stated that the administration had not facilitated the teachers' portion of the PAS and had limited effectiveness in planning and implementation. As you said, Simon, the PAS is a resource that the administration should use to qualify the strengths and weaknesses of the program for authentic feedback. If this is not utilized, I am unsure how the administration can validate program quality. Therefore, I feel this had negatively impacted the teachers' ability to mentor and grow as a team towards a joint mission and goal. We can see this in the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) results, where teachers struggled with the quality of feedback. And we could cycle this back to the need for additional support for ELL students in the classroom.

Explain what the program's greatest strength might be, as well as what might be the most critical area for which the program needs to improve and why. 

One of the program's greatest strengths was the diligence shown by teachers to use developmental screenings to assess significant domains. Guillo (2013) proposed that early language and literacy data from intentional assessment practices might be valuable for shifts in instructional planning. Also, overall CLASS scores demonstrated positive and engaging climates in the classroom. Program evaluations focus on the relationship between quality educators and the classroom environment and young students. According to Coelho et al. (2021), CLASS is a valid program evaluation method. However, great classrooms have to be maintained through administrative support. Teachers commented that there were not enough regular data team meetings. This is an excellent way for mentor teachers to expand the capacity of the overall teaching staff.

Explain how these significant findings might be perceived across stakeholder groups and why. 

The significant findings supported the efforts of the teaching staff and families to make connections and provide positive learning outcomes for students. The administration needs to evaluate the feedback and improve collaborative opportunities for teachers to strengthen the instructional support with culturally relevant training in the classroom. Stakeholders have a great deal of influence over students' lives, which should be continually considered. Research indicates that family involvement in a school system positively impacts student achievement and effort (Freeman-Loftis, 2019). Obtaining evidence of young children's abilities within the context of their environmental setting should be an integral part of proper early childhood education assessment practices, according to Bagnato et al. (2014). Teachers may not feel that they have not been supplied with enough data to make determinations from a vertical level of instruction. High-quality programs use data to identify at-risk children and support learning and teaching. NAEYC (2003). And, families may consider that there needs to be an intentional focus on their child's culture and language.

References

 

Bagnato, S. J., Goins, D. D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Neisworth, J. T. (2014). Authentic assessment as best practice for early childhood intervention: National Consumer Social Validity Report. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(2), 116–127.

Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The School Years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190. 

Coelho, V., Åström, F., Nesbitt, K., Sjöman, M., Farran, D., Björck-Åkesson, E., ... & Pinto, A. I. (2021). Preschool practices in Sweden, Portugal, and the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 79-96.

Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., Sprague. (2001). Teacher rating of oral language and literacy (troll) a research-based tool. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.  https://www.ryders-hayes.co.uk/images/LFDAy1/TROLL_full.pdf

Freeman-Loftis, B. (2019). How to really listen to parents - Educational Leadership.  http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may11/vol68/num08/How-to-(Really)-Listen-to-Parents.aspx

Gullo, D. F. (2013). Improving instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes for early childhood language and literacy through data-driven decision making. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 413–421.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC, 2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8.  https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC, n.d.-a). The 10 NAEYC program standards.  http://families.naeyc.org/accredited-article/10-naeyc-program-standards#1

Yaya-Bryson, D., Scott-Little, C., Akman, B., & Cassidy, D. J. (2020). A comparison of early childhood classroom environments and program administrative quality in turkey and north carolina. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00268-2