CSPR Data Summary Presentation 2008 Even Start SEA Coordinator Meeting.

CSPR Data Summary Presentation

2008 Even Start SEA Coordinator Meeting

2

Purpose of Collecting Even Start Data

• Inform the Department and Congress of Even Start accomplishments

• Determine where improvements are needed• GPRA data collected on the CSPR report provides

OMB information for program funding• State agencies may use data to inform collaborators

3

Reminders

• This is a data reporting system, not an evaluation.• There are limitations on extent to which data can

be analyzed.• Need to be cautious on drawing conclusions about

program impact based on data.

4

What Do We Know About the Number of

Subgrants?

5

Breakdown by State Allocation Categories

$455,400 - $960,061 (24 States)

$989,836 – 2,093,695 (17 States)

2,921,218 – 12,177,098 (10 states)

Average Number of Subgrants per State 6 13 31

Median Number of Subgrants per State 6 13 18

Range Number of Subgrants 2-13 7-22 11-81

Average Number of Families per Subgrant 29 30 41

SY 2006-2007 Total Subgrants = 688

Reporting Year Number of Subgrants

2004-2005 1,108

2005-2006 1,022

2006-2007 688

6

In General

• Over the past three reporting years…

• Funding has decreased 60%• Number of local grantees has declined by 38%• Number of Even Start participants has declined by 48%

7

What Do We Know About Even Start Participants?

8

In 2006-2007 Even Start Participants:

• 23,763 Even Start families• 24,711 adults (53% were English Language Learners) • 34,133 children

• 58,844 total number of Even Start participants

Of Participating children:39% were ages birth-two38% were ages 3-519% were ages 6-8 2% were over age 8 2% were reported as mixed-age group

9

Comparison DataEven Start Participants

# of Families# of Adults

(%ELLs)# of Children

Total # ofParticipants

2004-2005 44,096 46,719(48%) 66,220 112,939

2005-2006 38,151 39,865(49%) 56,403 96,268

2006-2007 23,763 24,711(53%) 34,133 58,844

10

Characteristics of Newly Enrolled Families…

• Newly enrolled families:

• 91% at or below the Federal poverty level (State range 57% - 100%)• 90% without high school diploma and/or GED (State range 40% - 100%)• 55% of adults had not gone beyond 9th grade ( State range 0% - 99%)

56%

44%

Returning Families (10,499)

Newly Enrolled Families (13,264)

11

Family Retention

2%

16%

14%

38%

30%

0 – 3 Months

4 – 6Months

7 – 12Months

12 +Months

Percent Families Retained 12+ Months

0 – 25% - 13 states

25 – 50% - 33 states

50 – 75% - 5 states

75 – 100% - 0 states

Percentage of families retained in each category has remained relatively same for the past two years.

12

What Do We Learn About Participant Outcomes?

13

Indicator 1: Number of adults showing significant learning gains on measures of reading

• 50 States reported on this indicator• Definition of significant gains for TABE and CASAS determined by states

Measure # Adults Tested

Percent Adults with Significant Gains

State Range Significant Gains

State Median Percent Gains

TABE 4,574 68% 11% - 100% 68%

CASAS 1,091 71% 48% - 100% 72%

Other 97 53% 35% - 100% 73%

14

Indicator I Comparison Data

62% 61%

68%

57%

63%

71%

31%

53%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TABE CASAS OTHER

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

15

Indicator 2: Number of LEP adults showing significant learning gains on measures

of English language acquisition

• 30 states reported on either the TABE and/or CASAS• 30 states reported on either BEST, BEST Plus and/or BEST ORAL and/or other• Definition of significant gains for measures determined by states

Measure # Adults Tested

Percent Adults with Significant Gains

State Range Significant Gains

State Median Percent Gains

TABE 420 65% 45% - 100% 80%

CASAS 1,806 75% 51% - 97% 78%

BEST 4,258 77% 48% - 100% 83%

BEST ORAL 1,122 78% 71% - 88% 78%

BEST PLUS 2,399 71% 53% - 100% 76%

Other 103 70% 63% - 79% 71%

16

Indicator 2 Comparison Data

72%

80%

68% 69% 70%

75%72%

75%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TABE CASAS OTHER

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

17

Indicator 3A: Number of school age adults who earn a high school diploma or GED

• 39 states reported diploma and GED data separately• 2 states reported diploma and GED combined• 10 states did not report data for this indicator

# CohortPercent

Making GoalState Range

EarnedState Median

Percent

Diploma 575 68% 0% - 100% 82%

GED 460 34% 27% - 100% 53%

18

Indicator 3B: Number of non-school age adults who earn a high school diploma or GED

• 48 states reported diploma and GED data separately• 1 states reported diploma and GED combined• 2 states did not report data for this indicator

# CohortPercent

Making GoalState Range

EarnedState Median

Percent

Diploma 292 70% 18% - 100% 52%

GED 2,237 52% 23% - 100% 83%

19

Indicator 3 Comparison Data

79%

68% 69%

34%

71% 70%

46%

52%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

School Age

Diploma

School Age

GED

Non-School

Age Diploma

Non-School

Age GED

2005-2006

2006-2007

NOTE: 2004-2005 Diploma and GED data not reported separately

20

Comments on Adult Data

Data was reported on approximately 79% of the total number of Even Start adults

Increase in use of BEST, BEST PLUS, and BEST ORAL for Indicator 2 in 2008.

Improved separate reporting of Diploma and GED data

21

Indicator 4: Number of children entering kindergarten who are achieving significant learning gains on

measures of language development

• Pool of 4,442 children age-eligible for kindergarten in FY08 and who were in Even Start for at least six months

• 643 children exempted from testing• 47 states reported PPVT and/or TVIP data• 4 states did not report PPVT/TVIP data

# CohortPercent with

Significant GainsState Range

Significant GainsAverage Median

Percent Gain

PPVT 2,855 75% 22% - 100% 79%

TVIP 21 52% 6% - 63% 54%

22

Additional PPVT Data

• Number of children who score within “age appropriate” range of PPVT• Number of age-eligible children in Even Start for 6 or more months with a

standard score of 85 or more on Spring PPVT• 22 states were able to voluntarily provide data this year• Data represents 69% of this eligible pool• All states expected to provide data for 2007-2008 report

Eligible Pool # Tested

Percent Scoring at 85 or above

State Range State Median Gains

2,603 1,799 66% 21% - 90% 71%

23

PPVT/TVIP Comparison Data

80%75% 75%

55%52%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PPVT TVIP

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

24

Indicator 5: The average number of letters children can identify measured by

PALS Pre-K Upper Case Letter Subtest

• 46 states reported at least some PALS data

• 5 states did not report PALS data

• 3,026 children tested in 2006-2007

Average # Letters Recognized

PALS Pre-K 16.2

Reporting Year

Weighted Average # Letters Children

Recognized

2004-2005 15.6

2005-2006 15.2

2006-2007 16.2

25

Comments on PPVT and PALS Data

• 65% of eligible children were tested with PPVT • Marked difference in PPVT pool of eligible children (4,442) and PALS

pool (2,603)• Marked decrease in use of TVIP• 14% of eligible pool exempted from PPVT• Still some states not reporting PPVT (4 states) and/or PALS (5

states) data

26

Indicator 6: Number of school-aged children who are reading on grade level

• 49 states reported data for this indicator• 34 states provided data broken out by grade level• All states expected to provide disaggregated data next year

# Cohort Percent Making Goal

State Range State Median Percent Gain

Kindergarten 2,065 73% 0% - 100% 78%

Grade 1 1,615 73% 24% - 100% 78%

Grade 2 1,161 70% 20% - 100% 77%

Grade 3 638 61% 17% - 100% 75%

Total 6,797 73% 17% - 100% 68%

27

Indicator 7: Number of parents who show improvement on measures of parental support

for children’s learning

• 29 states reported PEP data• 15 states reported data on other measures• 7 states did not report on this indicator• Other measures included surveys, indicator results, data reported on other instruments

# Cohort Percent Making Goal

State Range State Median Percent Gain

PEP Scale I 6,103 55% 28% - 95% 79%

PEP Scale II 7,031 64% 34% - 100% 79%

PEP SCALE III 3,143 73% 43% - 93% 78%

PEP Scale IV 2,391 76% 47% - 93% 83%

Other 6,219 88% 63% - 100% 90%

28

How does Even Start Measure Up Over Time?

GPRA Results

NOTE: GPRA indicators are different than indicators used for CSPR reporting

29

Measure 1.1 of 5: The percentage of Even Start adults who achieve significant learning gains on measures of reading/English language acquisition, as measured by the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) and the Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE). (Desired direction: increase) 1079

Year TargetActual

(or date expected)Status

2003 Set a Baseline 70 Target Met

2004 70.7 60.5 Did Not Meet Target

2005 71.4 63.8 Made Progress From Prior Year


2007 70.9 72% Target Exceeded

2008 71.2 Undefined Pending

► Combines CSPR Indicators 1 and 2

30

Measure 1.2 of 5: The percentage of Even Start adults with a high school completion goal who earn a high school diploma. (Desired direction: increase) 1080

Year TargetActual





2006 60.8 77.6 Target Exceeded


2008 61 Undefined Pending

► CSPR Indicator 3A

31

Measure 1.3 of 5: The percentage of Even Start adults with a goal of General Equivalency Diploma (GED) attainment who earn a GED. (Desired direction: increase) 1081

Year TargetActual


2003 Set a Baseline 44.6 Target Met






► CSPR Indicator 3B

32

Measure 1.4 of 5: The percentage of Even Start children who are entering kindergarten and who are achieving significant gains on receptive language on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT - III). (Desired direction: increase) 1082

Year TargetActual


2003 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected

2004 Set a Baseline 82.9 Target Met



2007 84.6 75% Did Not Meet Target


► CSPR Indicator 4

33

Measure 1.5 of 5: The number of letters Even Start children can identify, as measured by the PALS Pre-K Uppercase Letter Naming Subtask. (Desired direction: increase) 1719

Year TargetActual



2007 BL+1 (16) 16.2 Target Met

2008 BL+2 (17) (February 2009) Pending

► CSPR Indicator 5

34

What can States do to improve data collection?

• Provide additional grantee training on CSPR measures• Clarify testing guidelines, e.g., scheduling of post tests• Use consultants to collect CSPR data if necessary (e.g.,

PPVT; PALS)• Use desk and onsite monitoring to reinforce importance of

accurate and complete data collection• Revise data collection forms as needed

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leslie-cooper
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

CSPR Data Summary Presentation 2008 Even Start SEA Coordinator Meeting.

Documents