|
Alaska
Idaho Oregon Washington
 ROX
HEAD START NEWS 
|
|
OUTCOMES
- SUMMER 2000
|
A
Word From Cari
By Cari Olmsted
This newsletter is focused
on Outcomes. Thanks to Leslie Keller for editing and to all those who contributed
articles. One of the outcomes we all experience is change in the workplace.
We have several changes to report to you about the Quality Centers. We are
gaining two wonderful new staff members and losing one longtime staff person.
Steffen Saifer has accepted
a position at Northwest Regional Educational Lab, where he will be directing
the family/children's programs. We are sorry to lose such a valuable colleague
and partner after 14 years. Steffen has made so many contributions to the
Early Childhood Training Center and to the Head Start Community. Many of you
know him through the Oregon Assessment - an ongoing assessment tool he created
with some OR HS Education Coordinators. He used his HS Doctoral grant to conduct
reliability and validity studies on this instrument and to have it translated
into Spanish. Many of you have attended and put to work information gained
in his workshops on fairy tales, language, play, behavior and Vygotsky, not
to mention those of you who participated in his online class this spring on
Numeracy.
He has worked with grantees
across the region, and has worked in depth with many in Oregon. He will leave
a large hole here, but a big legacy of knowledge and skills with all of us
with whom he has worked. Steffen will complete the online Numeracy class he
is currently teaching and will teach a small piece of the Outcomes class at
the Summer Institute in Oregon.
This new job is a great
opportunity and will give Steffen a chance to spread his wings and his influence
in fields broader than Head Start. Steffen's last day here will be May 12,
2000. You can send your good bye and good luck comments directly to him at
saifers@pdx.edu.
One of the outcomes of persons
leaving is the opportunity to welcome new faces and new skills to our staff!
We are happy to welcome Connie Lucas-Branson to the QCDS staff for
Western Washington. She will be moving to Puyallup, WA in early June. Connie
has a Masters in Early Childhood Special Education and many years of working
with HS programs in Colorado and the Dakotas. We will send you her contact
information as soon as US West has hooked her up. I am delighted to have someone
with so much HS experience join the QCDS staff.
We are also happy to welcome
Betty Anderson Shuler who will be joining the QC staff in OR. Betty is moving
to Sisters OR in June and will be working with grantees in Central and Southern
OR. Betty is a registered Dietician with a Masters degree in Public Health.
She has a long history of working with the Head Start programs in Seattle.
We are thrilled to have a Health person as part of our team again!
We are also happy to welcome
Troy Montserrat-Gonzales to our office as receptionist. She is replacing Betty
Pitoby who has left. We welcome her cheerful voice to our telephone and know
you will appreciate her helpful manner.
STAFF OPENINGS: We still
have a staff opening in Western Washington. We are looking for someone with
Head Start experience and background and would prefer someone with a masters
degree in Business, Organizational Development, Early Childhood or Social
Work. If you are such a person and are looking for new challenges, please
contact Troy at the main number for a copy of the job announcement.
Results-Based
Measures, Outcomes and Accountability
When the Head Start Act
was re-authorized in 1998 by the Coats Human Services Amendments of 1998 (PL
105-285), new educational performance measures and local results-based performance
measures were mandated within the Act. The Act specifies that methods be developed
to assess the quality and effectiveness of Head Start programs and the impact
of services provided through the programs to children and their families.
The Act defines Program
Performance Measures as "methods and procedures for measuring, annually and
over longer periods, the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by
Head Start agencies." Recently, the Head Start Bureau issued an Information
Memorandum (ACYF-IM-HS-00-03) Initial Guidance on New Legislative Provisions
on Performance Standards, Performance Measures, Program Self-Assessment and
Program Monitoring to further draw attention to and inform grantees about
the legislative changes.
The Regional Office wants
to encourage all grantees to carefully review the information memorandum and
begin a dialogue within your Program on how your agency will respond to these
new requirements. Within the next six months and over the course of the upcoming
year, numerous conversations will be held regionally and nationally focusing
on child outcomes. Specific workshops and conference sessions will focus on
assessment tools, child indicators and outcome measures. The focus on outcomes/
results is part of the Bureau's commitment to the development of an outcome-oriented
accountability system. One of Head Start's key performance objectives is:
To provide children with high-quality, developmentally appropriate educational
services. Nationally, the Head Start Bureau is engaged in a comprehensive
research study known as the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey
(FACES). Performance Measures Progress Reports are being issued highlighting
the early, preliminary findings from the FACES data. The Progress Reports
on the Head Start program Performance Measures are available via the Head
Start Bureau's web page (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb).
A central principle emerging from this work is the need to ensure the quality
of Head Start programs for children and families.
So what does this all mean
for grantees? Grantees will be asked to identify specific program outcomes
to be measured and to select measures and data collection techniques and then
analyze the information gathered. All of these actions are focused on program
level reporting and monitoring and is based on a consensus driven set of criteria
for program accountability. It is also a response to the broader public emphasis
on accountability and the general movement toward results based evaluation.
Ultimately, each program will need to be able to answer the following questions:
Does our Program make a difference for children and families? Does it enhance
a child's growth and development? How can we demonstrate this? What are our
results?
Quality
and Results in Early Care and Education:
What Are We Doing in Washington State?
By Debra Williams-Appleton
In 1989, the nation's governors
and the president committed themselves to six national education goals. Goal
one stated that "by the year 2000, all children in America will start school
ready to learn". The key objectives for this goal included:
-
Access to high-quality
and developmentally appropriate preschool programs for all children that
help prepare them for school.
-
Access to training and
support for parents to be their child's first teacher and devote time daily
to helping their child learn and develop.
-
Access to appropriate
nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care for all children.
In 1997, Not by Chance:
Creating an Early Care and Education System for America's Children (Sharon
L. Kagan and Nancy E. Cohen) synthesized the major findings and recommendations
from the Quality 2000 Initiative, a four year comprehensive effort to promote
new thinking about reforming America's early childhood education system. Recommendation
number one called for increasing program quality by enhancing the learning
environment and children's learning opportunities. Recommendation number two
called for a results driven system with clear goals and quantifiable results
for children across the various developmental domains.
There is a growing interest
and trend toward measuring program quality in terms of results for children
and families. Clearly identified goals and measurable results provide a framework
for designing and implementing quality programs. They are also crucial for
evaluating the effectiveness of program activities and supporting continuous
program improvement. Results are also helpful in assessing the status of young
children in a community.
In 1998, the National Research
Council published Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
In the same year the National Association for the Education of Young Children
published Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices
for Young Children. Both publications highlighted the fact that children's
success in school and later in life is to a great extent dependent upon their
ability to read and write. The early childhood years are identified as a crucial
learning period with language and literacy development beginning at birth.
Recommendations are provided for the development of high-quality early learning
environments and developmentally appropriate strategies that promote child-based
results in language and literacy development.
In 1999, the 105th Congress
of the United States approved amendments to the Head Start and the Even Start
regulations, establishing requirements for clearly identifiable goals and
measurable results for children and families participating in those programs.
Other federally funded programs for young children are moving in the same
direction.
The growing interest in
the need to ensure that all children have an opportunity to enter school prepared
to learn and the growing interest in improving program quality and defining
measurable results have provided the impetus for several statewide initiatives
in Washington. A short description of several of these initiatives follows:
1. The Governor's
Commission on Early Learning is preparing to end its two year term in June
2000. The Commission has focused its work on improving quality early learning
environments by:
-
Sponsoring a public
engagement campaign aimed at parents and others who care for young children
to encourage them to obtain information about supporting young children's
development. The public engagement campaign is a partnership with the national
"I am Your Child" campaign.
-
Creating the Washington
Early Learning Foundation, a nonprofit corporation, that will continue public
engagement efforts, encourage quality improvements in child care, and increase
efforts in parent education.
2. The Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction has convened and supported the activities
of the Early Childhood Literacy Task Force for the past three years. The members
of the task force have included a broad base of early childhood stakeholders.
The goal of the task force was to develop linkages between early care and
education programs and create a continuum of learning and teaching that linked
with the state essential academic learning requirements. The task force has
completed the Birth to 5 Frameworks for Achieving the Essential Academic Learning
Requirements for Reading, Writing, and Communication. Current efforts include
the development of literacy toolkits to assist early care and education providers
in implementing high-quality, developmentally appropriate practices to support
emergent literacy development. An additional focus is the development of Birth
to 5 Frameworks for math.
3. The Head Start
State Collaboration Project is convening an Early Childhood Outcomes workgroup
to begin an initial state-level discussion across agencies to define common
outcomes and indicators for young children and families participating in various
early care and education programs. The purpose of this effort is to ensure
common understanding and agreement about the policymaking context and broad
statewide priorities regarding early learning:
-
Uniform planning, decision
making, and activities
-
Focus efforts and resources
-
Define opportunities
for collaboration and flexibility
4. With support and
direction from the five Family Policy Council (FPC) member agencies, staff
to the Council is creating an inventory of programs and services funded or
provided by the member agencies of the Family Policy Council that impact families
with children ages prenatal to eight. The services and supports identified
are organized around seven characteristics of thriving families. Clearly describing
the current collective efforts to help families and children thrive will lead
to a greater understanding of the system, including opportunities to improve
the system. The initial draft of the characteristics of thriving families
include safety, economic stability and basic needs, health (physical and mental),
appropriate child development, child-family bond, social integration, and
academic achievement.
5. The Washington
State Training and Registry System (STARS) has been designed and implemented
to ensure quality in child care settings by establishing minimum requirements
for professional development for child care providers and directors as a requirement
for licensing.
In summary, the initiatives
described here are not inclusive of all the efforts currently underway in
Washington State to improve quality in early learning environments. The intended
scope of this article is to highlight a few statewide initiatives.
Contact Debra Williams-Appleton,
Program Supervisor, Early Childhood Education and Family Literacy Programs
at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction for further information.
She may be reached at (360) 586-2263.
Idaho's
Blueprint for Early Learning
By Polly Taylor
Professional early childhood
organizations and parent consumers have developed a document for promote early
child care and education programs. The document Idaho's Blueprint for Early
Learning: The essential elements was created to put an Idaho "spin" on
the quality care issue. The consortium intention is that this document will
be available to professionals, providers, policy makers, and parents to provide
common ground for discussion and delivery of best services. The goal is to
insure the health and safety of all Idaho's children.
The Nine Essential Elements
outlined in the Blueprint are:
-
Effective Administration
and Business Practices
-
Early Care and Educational
Staff
-
Positive Relations
-
Program for Child Development
and Learning
-
Environments for Learning,
Health, and Safety
-
Health Promotion
-
Family Involvement
-
Inclusion Practices
Once published, this document
will be available to all groups who serve children in early learning settings.
For information or copies
contact the Idaho Head Start Association Office at 208-345-1182 or e-mail
IHSA@rmci.net.
Oregon
Strives For Accountability
By Ginger Fink In Oregon, the phrase "Oregon
Benchmarks" is familiar to just about everyone. It represents the commitment
of Oregonians to measure results of their efforts to achieve social, economic,
environmental, and educational goals. These goals are the "benchmarks".
The process of developing
the benchmarks began with Oregon's first strategic plan called Oregon Shines.
In 1996, following an extensive public process, Oregon Shines was updated
and republished as Oregon Shines II. A major feature of the revision
was the reduction of the number of benchmarks from 259 to 92.
The goals are monitored
by a group called the Oregon Progress Board. Created by the legislature in
1989, this group is responsible for implementing the 20-year strategic plan
(Oregon Shines). As part of its work to promote collaboration, the Oregon
Progress Board works with state agencies to tie their efforts to the benchmarks.
The reports on these linkages will be reported in "The Benchmark Blue Book",
which will be updated each biennium.
Of major concern to Head
Start groups is benchmark #21, which measures the percent of Oregon children
entering school with the developmental readiness necessary for them to succeed.
Other relevant benchmarks include those measuring the percentage of children
living in poverty, the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and others directed
at raising overall educational skills, improving health care access, and the
reduction of teen pregnancy.
A second, and almost concurrent
initiative toward outcomes-based measures was the Oregon Department of Education's
development of the content and performance standards for it's schools, and
levels of accountability towards achieving them. Beginning in 1995, this process
began with input from parents, teachers, business and community representatives.
Following development and revisions, a second draft was presented for public
comment in 29 public meetings around the state. By June of 1996 standards
had been drafted for all grades. A panel of national experts reviewed the
standards, and in September of 1996, the State Board of Education adopted
academic and content standards for kindergarten through grade 10. Content
and career-related learning standards were adopted in December, 1996. The
school year of 1998-1999 was the first year that students in grade 10 were
held accountable for achieving the new standards.
First levels of testing
to determine if standards are being met occurs at grade 3. The effect of accountability
measures generates behavior changes in both students and teachers. Programs
serving kindergartners, and children in grades 1 & 2 have content expectations
as well. The interpretation of these content standards into appropriate curricula
and practice is the challenge at hand for Head Start programs and early childhood
educators across the state.
As Oregonians strive for
real and measurable progress for the citizens, Head Start programs play a
significant role for the families we serve. The unique design of the comprehensive
services in Head Start and our own Performance Standards position us well
to support progress toward these goals.
Resources:
Achieving The Oregon
Shines Vision: The 1999 Benchmark Performance Report. Report to the Legislative
Assembly by the Oregon Progress Board, March 1999.
"Investing In Oregon's
Children", in Collaboration: "The Wind In Our Sails", newsletter of the Oregon
Head Start Collaboration Project, September, 1996.
Oregon's Content Standards:
1995 -1996. http://www.ode.state.or/edact/AboutStds.htm
Portland
Public Schools Head Start Takes Leading Role in Educational Strategies
By Allyson Yoshiwara
Having a
public school system as your Head Start Grantee has both advantages and challenges.
The Portland Public Schools Head Start Program has been tied to Portland Public
Schools for over 30 years. We have experienced varying degrees of collaboration
during that history. Most recently we have collaborated very successfully
and in a mutually beneficial manner around outcomes related to literacy.
Three years
ago Portland Public Schools (PPS) brought together a Literacy Advisory Committee
to evaluate the District's literacy instruction in Pre-K through Grade 3.
Our Head Start Program was included at that table. We had an initial and ongoing
voice in developing the philosophy and subsequent document which would guide
the District in literacy instruction. At the same time a committee was formed
to develop developmentally appropriate benchmarks for the District which were
tied to Oregon State Benchmarks. PPS Head Start teachers and District Pre-Kindergarten
teachers worked together to develop the Benchmarks for all Pre-Kindergarten
and Head Start children in the District.
While we
were involved in this work with the District, Head Start was going through
the reauthorization process. This reauthorization emphasized both Literacy
development and the measurement of student outcomes. Following the development
of the District's PreK-3 Literacy Initiative our Head Start Program set to
work in a variety of ways to pull all of these new ideas and expectations
together. We wanted to be sure it all happened in a way that was good for
young children.
We have
always been committed to literacy development and felt it was a strength in
our curriculum, but we did not feel we measured it as closely as we could.
Our first task in the summer of 1998 was to develop an assessment tool which
would measure progress toward the new benchmarks. In the Fall of 1998, when
our staff returned for the year we began a year long process of training and
support in the area of literacy.
Our first
training was designed to recognize and utilize the expertise our staff already
possessed. Activities were designed for staff to share strategies for attaining
each of the Benchmarks in Literacy Experiences, Phonemic Awareness, Print
Awareness, Letter Knowledge, Comprehension, Writing, and Listening and Speaking.
We trained staff on the assessment tool and staff agreed to pilot the tool
during that school year. Subsequent trainings focused on specific activities
and strategies to support staff in their efforts. Resources were purchased
for the classrooms to enrich the environment and provide teachers with more
tools to support their goals for children.
At the end
of that year, the assessment tool was evaluated and revised. It was also adopted
by the District to serve as the pre-k assessment tool district wide. Our program's
Education Staff was asked to help train the District's Pre-K teachers on the
use of the assessment and on the Pre-K Benchmarks. This year we have taken
on that task and we are also working on the development of Pre-K Math Benchmarks
for the District. This process has been labor intensive, yet has led to improved
literacy instruction in our Head Start classrooms. It has been beneficial
to the District in many ways. We believe that all of the district's children
will benefit from our participation at this level and it is satisfying to
see Head Start take a lead in planning and implementing educational strategies
at the same table as the Public Schools.
Alaska
Head Start Directors Focus on Outcomes
By Charlie Johanson-Adams
On a snowy and cold wintry
day in November 1999, the Head Start Directors from across the state of Alaska
converged in Anchorage to meet, share, listen and learn about outcomes. The
training was sponsored by Prevention Associates, Quality Center and facilitated
by Charlie Johanson-Adams. The focus of the training and conversation was
based on a request from the Directors, who wanted "clarity of mind" regarding
the development and measurement of outcomes ~ statewide and throughout their
programs.
We began our session by
investigating the basics of outcomes such as:
-
Why do/should we use
outcomes?
-
What national trends
and timelines are we following in outcome development?
-
How are the outcomes
related to the ultimate goal of Head Start?
-
Reasons for outcome
measurement / performance measurement in Head Start
Guided by the critical documents
i.e.: the Head Start Reauthorization Act, the Revised Performance
Standards, Charting our Progress: Development of the Head Start Program
Performance Measures; Creating a 21st Century Head Start: Final Report,
the First Progress Report on the Head Start Program Performance Measures;
and the Second Progress Report: Head Start Performance Measures; the
group shared their own documents and drew comparisons between the critical
documents above and those documents that "guide us" in our own programs. We
reviewed our strategic plans, goals/objectives, work plans and other plans/documents.
From these we developed a matrix which reflected where each individual
program oriented itself in the development of program outcomes.
Our Matrix provided the
foundation from which we proceeded into the day. Using the framework from
United Way of America called "Program Outcome Measurement"; the Directors
mapped and planned various outcomes they are individually challenged with.
As smaller working groups worked on strengthening the concepts of outcomes,
a common language began to emerge. This was the outcome of the session! We
found that if a common language and understanding could be found in determining
outcomes and measuring outcomes, then what we are truly talking about (RESULTS)
really is not so intimidating. We also found that most programs were operation
within a results-based philosophy.
As an added bonus, the Directors
began to identify their struggles in meeting outcomes and their successes.
A side benefit was identifying Directors who could become the "experts" in
outcome development and measurement. We finalized the day developing a sensible
plan to which has given us direction and a construct for the future of Head
Start in Alaska. Once placed into a common language we all could share in
understanding, outcome planning, development and measurement became simply
a process for accountability. One which we are all now familiar with!
Back
to Top
Family
Services Outcomes: It's a Matter of Focus
By Chuck Smith
With
the rising attention on outcomes and questions regarding the result of all
the efforts made by Head Start programs, many programs and people have begun
to reexamine their work and their efforts. Unfortunately, the inference that
not adequately tracking outcomes suggests that there are no meaningful outcomes
being achieved, has lead to levels of unwarranted anxiety among some. Granted,
the task of providing family support services in a program described as a
comprehensive child development and family services program that is child
centered and family focused, and has at its roots the goal to mediate the
effects of poverty, is an awesome task. On the positive side, the range of
possible meaningful outcomes is almost endless. On the negative side, the
range of expected meaningful outcomes is almost endless. The key to successfully
producing and tracking family service outcomes is through focusing.
Establishing and maintaining
focus in family services is not as easy as it would seem. First, there are
a number of services and objectives germane to Head Start, which require family
service functions and are important enough to track as outcomes. This extensive
lists includes obtaining primary medical and dental care for children, health
services for pregnant women, stable living conditions, meeting basic needs,
successful advocacy for the needs/rights of ones children and overall family,
creating a home environment that supports healthy child development, enhancing
family literacy, effective use of community resources, gaining/maintaining
an effective social network, earning a livable family income (i.e. self-sufficiency),
and effectively resolving crises.
Second, the high value
on a family owned partnership agreement with the program opens the door for
this range of goals and efforts, even if the program does define a more limited
scope of major goals and program emphasis. Third, the reasonably expected
level of service that can be delivered by most programs (typically between
4 and 9 contacts per year by design) lends itself to a more cursory coverage
of many areas (sort of a case management function) rather than more in depth
attention to a few areas. Fourth, it is difficult for workers to limit the
scope of their goals and services with families when the major struggle is
to try to successfully engage families in working with staff on meaningful
and appropriate (for the program) goals in a sustained manner. Thus the dilemma;
workers need a flexible range of areas to work in so that they can meet the
diversity of family interests, but working with too much range leads to a
diffusion of efforts.
By looking at the elements
of outcome measurement we should be able to see why focus is so critical in
effectively measuring family service outcome. Basically, there are 3 types
of outcome evaluation: effectiveness analysis, impact analysis, and cost-benefit
analysis. We will look more closely at effectiveness analysis. It is relatively
easy to implement within a program as part of the regular program operations.
In contrast, impact and cost-benefit analyses require that a similar population
outside the program be identified and used for comparison (i.e. control group).
Such analyses often require additional staff and financial resources beyond
typical program operations.
Schalock (1995) has described
the basic elements of effectiveness analysis. They are summarized below.
-
Identify clearly the
purpose for doing the analysis. Basically you want to determine the extent
that the program obtained its goals and objectives.
-
Establish a comparison
condition. Three variations are to use the person as own comparison, do
a pre-post change comparison, or do a longitudinal status comparison.
-
Describe how the comparison
conditions were established and how recipients entered the program.
-
Describe the core data
sets- recipient characteristics, core service functions, cost estimates,
and person-referenced outcomes (outcomes that are meaningful to the recipients)
and how they were operationalized and measured.
-
Describe how the data
were analyzed. Summarize the major results in reference to the purposes
of the analysis.
-
Discuss the major results
in regard to how the outcome feedback can be used.
-
Outline the implications
of the results for programmatic changes.
The effectiveness analysis
process requires that program goals be clearly articulated and described in
operational terms. Does the program's goals encompass the range of family
service activities that staff actually do? Are these activities, the needs
that they address, and the expected results described in a measurable way?
The need for focusing, both
the goals and services becomes readily apparent when attempting to operationalize
the range of relevant activities and outcomes possible in family services.
Aside from the need to be able to provide sufficient services to affect a
range of desired outcomes, the scope of the job itself has to be comprehendible
to the staff in terms of understanding the program goals, the services to
be provided, and the expected outcomes of these service both for the individual
family and the overall program. Evaluating effectiveness can help determine
if the scope of the family services job is too large to implement. Moreover,
it can help assess a far more significant problem; whether the job is too
broad and complex to be adequately understood by those charged with providing
the services.
Beyond following the effectiveness
analysis process, greater focus can be achieved by viewing family services
outcomes in 3 areas; parenting, family functioning, and social support outcomes.
Measuring effectiveness is fairly easy once the goals and desired outcomes
have been described. This is true at the program and individual family levels.
After identifying what areas your outcome lie, standardized measures or custom
designed measures can be applied. There is a range of tools available in each
of the general areas. A description of some common outcome measurement tools
can be found in the resources listed below.
The range of meaningful
family service outcomes is great. Identifying the most important program goals
and outcomes lays the foundation for defining the services to be provided
and selecting which outcomes to track most closely. Selecting and measuring
the outcomes of these goals is a matter of focus.
References and Resources:
Corcoran, Kevin and Joel
Fischer. Measures for Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook. New York: The
Free Press, 1987.
Dunst, Carl, Trivette, Carol,
and Deal, Angela. Supporting and Strengthening Families Vol. 1: Methods,
Strategies, and Practices. Cambridge: Brookline, 1994.
Dunst, Carl, Trivette, Carol,
and Deal, Angela. Enabling and Empowering Families. Cambridge: Brookline,
1988.
Fetterman, David, Kaftarian,
Shakeh, and Wandersman, Abraham Eds. Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge
and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Sage Publications, 1996
Grotevant, Harold and Carlson,
Cindy. Family Assessment: A Guide to Methods and Measures. New York:
Guilford, 1989.
Magura, Stephen, et al.
Assessing Risk and Measuring Change in Families. Washington: CWLA,
1987.
McCubbin and Thompson. Family
Assessment Inventories for Research and Practice. Madison WI: U. of Wisconsin-Madison,
1987.
Rauch, Julia Ed., Assessment:
A Sourcebook for Social Work Practice. Milwaukee: Families International
Inc., 1993.
Schalock, Robert L. Outcome-Based
Evaluation. NewYork: Plenum Press, 1995.
Weiss, Heather, and Jacobs,
Francine Eds. Evaluating Family Programs. New York: Aldine De Gruyter,
1988
Management
System Outcomes in Head Start Programs
By Johnnie Cain
Does this and the questions
that follow sound familiar, "When the money runs out, there is no more money!"
"But the Feds can be asked for an extension--there is some quality money,
isn't there? Can't we just rollover last years' excess? Of course I had a
Budget, but I didn't know we had spent that much already!"
In Head Start, we have been
tasked to provide outcomes to the various Management Systems of the Program.
In this case the budget is one of the primary systems utilized to monitor
our spending. Webster defines 'system' as a set of facts, principles, rules,
etc. classified or arranged in a regular, orderly form so as to show a logical
plan linking the various parts. How are systems defined in Head Start? This
is a question that can be answered in a unique and different way; so let's
try.
In science, there are rules
and laws established for how to understand the various systems of Nature.
Therefore, the Physical Laws of Nature and Science have been the best system
outcome measurements designed to date. Some are cited as follows:
"For every action, there
is an opposite and equal reaction."
"Matter in motion,
tends to remain in motion. Matter at rest, tends to remain at rest."
"What goes up, must come down."
Not only are the above statements time-tested,
they are accurate and precise. The objective is stated, and the outcome is
immediately identified. Therefore, the outcomes are clearly identifiable to
the objectives they follow.
The simplicity of these Laws of Science
can certainly be applied to Management Outcomes. In Head Start, we seem to
have great difficulty when it comes to the measurement of management outcomes
in Head Start Programs. However, the I-99 Core Questions are designed as "target
outcomes" of measuring the effectiveness of the Head Start Management Systems.
For example, Core Question #8 - Fiscal management asks the question, "Is there
an effective fiscal management system for developing and approving the budget,
monitoring expenditures, producing reports, and maintaining accountability?
Does this system ensure that federal regulations regarding finances are met;
and does it support the program in its implementation of comprehensive services?"
A statement could be made that the absolutes
of Science have absolutely no relevancy in terms of Head Start outcomes. Right?
Wrong! The Performance Standards are Head Starts' Science, and they provide
the specific references that help us develop answers, or the 'Art', for measuring
the outcomes that relate to this or any other Core Question. For example,
CFR 1301.32-33; 1304.20(c)(5); 1304.23(b)(1)(i); 1304.50(f);(g)(2); 1304.51(h)1-2;
1304.52(d)(8); 1308.4(m)-(o); 45 CFR Part 1301 Subparts B&D; Part 74 Subpart
C; and, Part 92 Subpart C are all Performance Standards that are there to
assist and provide direction toward the outcome.
Unless there is a way to measure the
pluses and minuses of money flow, there is no precise way to measure the outcomes.
The outcome in this case is indicated by something called a Budget. There
is technology and/or science (Computer Budget Tracking Programs) currently
available and in use in Head Start Programs in Region X that can greatly enhance
that ways that Grantees can be more precise in their measurements of outcomes.
There is a way to know the precision
of "what goes out as a payment/debit, is equal to what comes in as credit
(grants, in-kind and contributions)." The "Art" is utilizing the tools that
are available. The truth is that there are always exceptions in Head Start
(unlike the Laws of Nature and Science): Therefore, outcomes in Head Start
are both an Art, and a Science!
Child
Outcomes: Potentials and Pitfalls 
By Steffen Saifer
OUTCOMES IN GENERAL
Outcomes are neither good nor bad. The fact is, however, they do exist - intentionally
or otherwise. Teachers and administrators have outcomes in mind when they
choose a particular activity over another, or choose to say one thing to a
child rather than another. It is good to make these explicit so we can be
more intentional in what we do. For example, before I observed a teacher in
her class, I asked her about her goals. She said her primary goals were the
social and emotional development of the children. After observing, I was able
to point out the few ways in which she supported and fostered social and emotional
development and, the more numerous, ways in which she (unintentionally) squashed
positive social and emotional development. It turned out that her actual desired
outcomes for children were much more around particular cognitive skills, and,
in fact, she often sacrificed positive emotional development towards those
ends. Placing the discussion in terms of desired vs. actual outcomes was helpful.
She then was faced the decision to accept her actual goals as her desired
goals or to change practices to more accurately reflect her desired goals.
She choose the latter - fortunately - as it was more aligned with the program's
goals for children.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The purpose of any "outcomes" effort should be accountability. We need to
show that we can truly help children grow and develop. That what we do makes
a difference. However, this is not an easy task, and there are many ways we
can do harm to children, in our efforts to assure accountability. The main
way this happens is by sacrificing more difficult to achieve and difficult
to show long-term outcomes, for easier to achieve and to show short-term outcomes.
For example, it is too easy to sacrifice helping children develop the disposition
to be readers for helping them develop a few specific, narrow reading skills.
Yet we know that without the disposition to be a reader - the skills may not
be used!
THE THREE PHASES
There are three phases of developing and implementing outcomes for children,
that each need be done very well to be helpful to children and to the program.
At each phase there is great danger that our efforts will be harmful rather
than helpful to children. Likewise, at each phase, there is great potential
to use outcomes to benefit children by helping us be more intentional and
effective - not to mention to show the public, policy-makers, and funders
that we are doing good things and are worthy of continued and increased funding!.
First, we need to create good, appropriate outcomes; second, we need
to use effective and appropriate strategies to help children make progress
towards these outcomes; and third, we need to carefully assess and
measure how well children are achieving the outcomes.
CREATING OUTCOMES
The key principles of creating good outcomes are:
Outcomes should be individualized.
Different children have different abilities, needs, learning styles, etc.
They enter our program at very different levels of development and therefore
will leave our program at different levels, but having made progress. Certainly
there will be some different annual outcomes for most 3 year than for most
4 year olds.
Outcomes should be relative.
To account for progress an outcome should be stated in relative terms, rather
than in absolute terms. "Children will increase their vocabularies." "Children
will increase their abilities to communicate effectively with others". These
are examples of relative outcomes (in the area of language development).
Outcomes should be broad,
but apply to a single area and be observable (and therefore measurable).
The outcomes described above meet this criteria. Although both have to do
with language development, it would not be wise to combine them because
a child might make gains in one but not the other. They are specific enough
to measure them.
Outcomes should, to the
greatest extent possible, apply to all children. Children who are hearing
impaired and use sign language, or are monolingual Russian speakers, can
be included in the above outcomes. They also should increase their vocabularies
and get better at communicating as part of our services to them in Head
Start.
Outcomes should reflect
the program's philosophy and goals. There should be more outcomes in areas
that reflect the more important goals of the program for children and fewer
in areas that are less important. As all programs care about the development
of the "whole child", there should be outcomes in all areas of development.
"Children will ask to be read to". "Children will have favorite books that
they 'read' (parts of, if not all) from memory". These are outcomes that
reflect the goal that most programs have to help each child develop the
disposition to be a reader.
STRATEGIES
Outcomes help us to focus on what we will do with children. Strategies refer
to how we will do it. We can help or hinder children with our strategies,
even if we create excellent outcomes. Any document describing outcomes should
also include suggested strategies so that the importance of best practices
is communicated. The ends should never justify the means. To the greatest
extent possible, practices should be active, interactive, meaningful, integrated,
hands-on, and all those other qualities of "best practice" that you know so
well. "Children will be read to at least twice a day". "Adults will ask open-ended
questions and use language extension techniques often and consistently". These
are effective, appropriate strategies to help us help children on both the
language and the reading outcomes described previously.
ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT
Like with strategies, an outcomes approach never precludes using best practices
in assessment and measurement. And like strategies, any outcomes document
should include ways to assess progress on the outcomes to assure that best
practices are followed. As assessment is powerful and will often impact practices,
it is vital that assessment be done well. Programs can often use their existing
"on-going" assessment tools for this purpose. There may have to be some slight
modifications, additions, and the inclusion of a scoring system, however.
Using existing tools and systems, will avoid the problem of "teaching to the
test". Measurement results should reflect the program as whole so that results
cannot be linked to specific children, which may lead to misuse. For example,
one Head Start program gathers all the scores on the Oregon Assessment three
times per year. They create a report that shows the percentage of children
who score at each of the five possible scores for each item. They could have
used the average score of all children on each item, but this strategy gives
more information. By the end of the year the report graphically shows the
progress children make in the program on each item. Oh, of course, each item
is linked to one or more outcomes!
CONCLUSION
The final and essential step is to use the information from the outcome effort
to learn about your education program's strengths and weaknesses. The main
purpose of outcome effort should be for on-going program improvement. Head
Start is just one of thousands of agencies and programs that are being asked
to be more accountable by demonstrating progress on outcomes for their clients;
to show results. Although, a vital idea, if not done well, it could backfire
and reduce our effectiveness. By being informed, deliberate, and careful in
implementing each of the three phases of the an outcomes approach, we will
be more focused and intentional in our work with children. This will undoubtedly
make us more effective.
A
Child Care Action Campaign (CCAC) publication
Partnering
for Success: CommunityApproaches to Early Learning
A Report on Partnerships in Low-Income Communities by Susan Ochshorn.
OVERVIEW:
To reinforce the critical link between quality early childhood programs and
school readiness, Child Care Action Campaign (CCAC) searched the country for
exemplary partnerships among local schools, child care providers, and Head
Start that are producing better outcomes for children. In the report, Partnering
for Success: Community Approaches to Early Learning, CCAC presents 68
partnerships in 37 states that are providing an effective vehicle for education
reform that starts with early childhood. The following is a summary of findings
and recommendations from Child Care Action Campaign's Partnering for Success:
Community Approaches to Early Learning.
FINDINGS:
Partnerships between schools and early childhood education programs are an
effective way to provide more children with access to the good quality child
care and early education experiences they need to enter school ready to learn.
School superintendents have been prime initiators in launching and sustaining
80 % of the partnerships. Eighty-four percent of the programs report higher
levels of performance in elementary school. Program continuity for three-
to eight-year-olds is evolving in the majority of partnerships.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
All children should have access to the benefits of good quality child care
and early education, especially in lower-income communities where working
parents lack affordable options. States committed to improving school readiness
and educational outcomes should invest in bettering the quality of early education.
Superintendents in all the nation's school districts need to see collaborative
early childhood efforts as a vehicle for education reform as well as a foundation
for universal prekindergarten. Not only should children be ready for school,
but schools must be ready for children. Community-based early childhood organizations
should be encouraged by CCAC's findings and approach schools with specific
proposals for partnering. All early childhood partnerships must take into
account the needs of working parents.
The press release and
summary of findings can be found at: http://www.childcareaction.org/rpress.html
