How are the children of Wisconsin doing?

1. WISCONSIN EARLY CHILDHOOD LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEM; Briefing for Department of Public InstructionNovember 29, 20111:30-3:00

2. How are the children of Wisconsin doing?

3. DATA: Where We Were • The 2010 Wisconsin Early Childhood System Assessment Report (completed by UW-Madison LaFollette School of Public Affairs) reported: • While the state collects many types of data related to early childhood, we don’t have the capacity to connect it, track children’s progress, or use it to assess the system. “The simple act of describing something can galvanize action. What gets counted gets noticed. What gets noticed, gets done.” Glenn Fujiura, University of Illinois

4. In 2009, Wisconsin Act 59 was signed into law, requiring the establishment and maintenance of a P20 (preschool through age 20) longitudinal data system. • Wisconsin was awarded three grants via the US Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences (IES)-sponsored State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) Grant Program.

5. 2009 ARRA Grant • Awarded 3rd LDS grant in May 2010 • $13.8 million awarded to WI • Grant proposal fully funded • Three initiatives • Online educator licensure system • Enhancement of ability to exchange data with postsecondary institutions in WI – Interoperability • Continue with postsecondary initiatives • Research and feasibility study of early childhood data in relation to the LDS • Begin conversations around early childhood

6. Timeline • July 2010 – July 2013 • Outcome 1: Analyze the current early childhood data environment • July 2011-July 2012 (Year 2) • Outcome 2: Establish data sharing methodologies • July 2011-July 2013 (Years 2-3) • Outcome 3: Develop work plan to realize data sharing process • July 2012-July 2013 (Year 3)

7. Early Childhood Data Strategy • Outcome #1: Analyze the current early childhood data environment • Identify early childhood programs with the following information: data elements collected, method of collection, availability of the data collected, data standards used, and the capacity available for data sharing. • Outcome #2: Establish data sharing methodologies • Build consensus around common data elements, other data elements needed, and common data standards between DPI and early childhood education partners. • Outcome #3: A work plan to realize data sharing process • Create a work plan to indicate how, what, and when the identified data elements can be added to the LDS on a per program schedule.

8. Wisconsin Early Childhood Advisory Council • One key objective of the Governor’s Wisconsin Early Childhood Advisory Council • build an integrated early childhood system to measure better outcomes for healthy, nurtured, safe, and successful children in the State of Wisconsin. • create a comprehensive longitudinal data system to be used in planning and decision-making.

9. Strategic Priority: Data Alignment Create a comprehensive longitudinal data system to be used in planning and decision-making.

10. An Early Childhood Longitudinal Data System (EC LDS) Project Team has been formed to carefully formulate a Work Plan to guide the process. • Includes program/content staff and data staff from DCF, DWD, DHS and DPI • Includes members from the Governor’s Early Childhood Advisory Council • Demonstrates intentional collaboration across departments • Hired a Project Coordinator in August 2011 and a Data Analyst in September 2011

11. EC LDS Project Charter created September, 2011 • A Project Charter was created and signed in September, 2011. • The Charter was signed by Secretary Dennis Smith from DHS, Secretary Eloise Anderson from DCF, and Dr. Tony Evers, State Superintendent for DPI.

12. Part of the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Application • Section E-2 of RTTT requires building or enhancing an early learning data system to improve instruction, practices, services and policies. • The Project Charter was submitted as a demonstration of cross department collaboration. • Application was submitted October 19, 2011 with final award decisions expected end of December.

13. What could the result be? • A unified data system would • collect information about children, personnel, and programs, with an individual identifier for each. • allow information about children, personnel, and programs to be linked through those individual identifiers. • include mechanisms for reporting and analysis that make its data accessible to those who need it while respecting important privacy considerations.

14. Five step process • Identify key end users • Identify key questions • Identify the data elements to answer those questions • Identify where (if anywhere) those elements are tracked • Identify how to add and link data to answer the key questions needed

15. Potential Indicators for Measuring Progress and Annual Reporting Early Learning • % of children with access to high quality early childhood programs • % of children referred for IDEA Part C, Part B, mental health, or other services • % of children proficient in __ (future measure for kindergarten assessment) • % of children proficient at the 3rd grade reading test Health • % of babies born at low birth weight • % of children with appropriate number of well child exams • % of children fully immunized in their age range • % of children with health insurance Families/Communities • % of children in foster care • % of children with referrals for child abuse or neglect • % of children in poverty • # of communities with an early childhood council

16. Data: Identifying Existing Sources • Subsidized Child Care (WI Shares, YoungStar) • Licensed Child Care • Individuals with Disability Education Act: (IDEA) Part B and Part C • Individual Student Identifier System (DPI) • Head Start/Early Head Start • Home Visiting • Health (immunization, Vital Records, etc) • Tribal Health Data Collection • AFCD/TANF (CARES) • Child Support (KIDS) • SNAP/Food Stamps (CARES) • Child Protective Services (WiSACWIS) • Medicaid/Badgercare (CARES)

17. Data: Fundamental Components • Unique statewide child identifier • Child-level demographic and participation information • Child-level data on child development • Link child-level data with K-12 and other key programs • Unique program identifier to link with children and workforce • Program site structural and quality information • Unique ECE workforce identifier to link with sites and children • Individual-level data on ECE workforce demographic, education and professional development information • Transparent privacy protection and security practices and policies • State governance body to manage data collection and use

18. Connecting the dots…. • Which children are “where”, served by “whom?” Who isn’t receiving any services? • Which providers are working with which children, and how does this impact long term outcomes for children? How does professional development influence provider impact? • Which programs are serving which children? What are the attributes of quality? What about curriculum and long term impact?

19. Who are the potential end users? • Parents • Early childhood program administrators, teachers, practitioners, home visitors • Policy makers, legislators • Judicial officers • K-12 administrators and teachers • Special education administrators • Researchers, advocates, foundations • Business leaders/analysts, municipal officials/planners • Personnel in foster care and adoption system • Social Services staff, child protective services staff • Medical personnel, vital records personnel • More……

20. Considering the questions… • National guidance was provided by the Early Childhood Data Collaborative, as well as the Data Quality Campaign. • Guidance was considered in the creation of the five questions Wisconsin wants to answer. • Questions were vetted by early childhood system stakeholders during the Early Childhood Collaborating Partners video conference on August 11, 2011.

21. The “BIG” Questions We Want to Answer • Are children, birth to 5, on track to succeed when they enter school and beyond? • Which children and families are and are not being served by which programs/services? • Which children have access to high-quality early childhood programs and services? • What characteristics of programs are associated with positive child outcomes for which children? • What are the education and economic returns on early childhood investments?

22. Next Activities…. • A Data Roundtable in February of a diverse group of stakeholders • To identify the numerous questions underlying the “big five” questions---what are all the questions we must answer to really know how children are doing? • To identify “who” holds the data that may answer these questions? • To include key partners in these processes to ensure cross system collaboration and create consensus. • We need your help…”who” from your division/agency should attend this Roundtable?

23. Next Steps… • Setting up interviews/survey across systems • Determine what data elements are currently collected by which systems • Gather data dictionary for each data set • Explore inter-operability and potential data linkages • Identify the data gaps • We need your help-”Who” in each division/agency would be able to provide information about your current data system and data elements?

24. Next steps…identify data system oversight requirements • Compliance with federal, state and local privacy laws • Data governance policy • Restricted access and authorized users • Transparency policy to inform public • We need your help---Who in your current system oversees data governance, security and privacy?

25. For further conversations or questions, contact: • Rod Packard • Rod.Packard@dpi.wi.gov • Jill Haglund • Jill.Haglund@dpi.wi.gov • Carol Noddings Eichinger, EC LDS Project Coordinator • Carol.Eichinger@dpi.wi.gov • June Fox, EC LDS Data Analyst • June.Fox@dpi.wi.gov