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

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

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

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

Colleagues,

Note, this is a GROUP DISCUSSION. Please do not be late in working with your colleagues!

Colleagues,

Welcome to

Week 6 and Module 3 Part 2. This is a good time to look ahead and think about which member of your group will help to organize the presentation so each colleague will be able to contribute to build a quality group presentation. Although everyone is expected to contribute, someone will need to step into a leadership role for the PPT. I will not assign any of your individual contributions to the group project, but I wanted to alert you to the need to think ahead. The better presentations had voice overs by each of the group members, which is easy to accomplish on PPT. Please…no Prezi presentations and no presentations on the cloud.

Group Discussion: Part 2 – By Day 6 of Week 6 – Saturday, 10 April 2022

Each member posts the following:

· Describe the major findings that you analyzed, including the stakeholders for whom the data were obtained and/or focused.

· Using the information garnered from your evaluation and evaluations 6 and 7:

· Describe what you perceive to be program strengths.

· Describe what you perceive to be opportunities for improvement.

· Explain how effective the might program be and why.

Support your analysis with specific references to evaluation data and the evaluation’s scoring and/or rating scale.

Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made and the connections you have made with the Learning Resources.

Revisit this Discussion Board throughout Week 6 to explore and discuss analyses shared by group members. Respond to all group members. Post ways colleagues’ posts contributed to your learning.

Note: Coming up — Interviews with an early childhood program director and a stakeholder from the same organization that went through an accreditation process. This assignment will not be revised or substituted with a video.  

Wishing you a good week!

Barbara

Dr. Mary Barbara T

Group Discussion: Step 2: Collect the Data

Effective early childhood leaders positively impact their programs by making targeted, data-driven decisions. They become consumers of information, systematically evaluating and acting upon the insights gained through data collection.

In this Group Discussion Board, you and your group members share data collected from Connor Street’s evaluations. Like a detective, you begin your investigation by sifting through the data to highlight information about the program’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. You then use this information to provide insight into the program’s effectiveness.

To prepare

Review the Head Start resources presented in this module. As you explore the interactive content and videos, reflect on best practices early childhood leaders use to collect data. Then, revisit the evaluation you selected for the Assignment and submitted in Week 4 by conducting additional research to learn more about the evaluation. Last, begin a preliminary review of your evaluation data and the data that are presented in Evaluation 5 (NAEYC Accreditation Decision Report) and Evaluation 6 (NAEYC Self-Assessment Teaching Staff Survey), and Evaluation 7 (NAEYC Self-Assessment Family Survey) found in Module 2 resources.

Day 5

Each member posts the following:

· Describe the major findings that you analyzed, including the stakeholders for whom the data were obtained and/or focused.
· Using the information garnered from your evaluation and evaluations 6 and 7:
· Describe what you perceive to be program strengths.
· Describe what you perceive to be opportunities for improvement.
· Explain how effective the might program be and why.
Support your analysis with specific references to evaluation data and the evaluation’s scoring and/or rating scale.
Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made and the connections you have made with the Learning Resources.
Revisit this Discussion Board throughout Week 6 to explore and discuss analyses shared by group members. Respond to all group members. Post ways colleagues’ posts contributed to your learning.

Submission Information

Post by Day 5 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 5 of Week 6

To participate in this Group Discussion:

Groups

http https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/ncpfce-markers-of-progress ://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/7-1

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/evaluate/evaluation/framework-for-evaluation/main

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/culture/cultural-competence/understand-culture-social-organization/main

https://www.naeyc.org/principles-effective-family-engagement

Required Media

https://cdn-media.waldenu.edu/2dett4d/Walden/EDDD/8084/CH/mm/audio_interviews/module3.html

1

Accreditation and Evaluation

Lua Shanks

Dr. Trube

EDDD8084

03-27-2022

Accreditation and Evaluation

Accreditation and evaluation are two concepts that hold different meanings although used interchangeably. Accreditation refers to a process by which a school gains the status that shows that the school has met all the requirements as per the accreditation agencies. In contrast, evaluation is a system in which institutions are assessed either by an agency or by themselves in accordance with the standard of the practices that have been established with respect to their goal as a school. It entails assessing utilization of resources, promotion of integrity, and the extent to which the institutions are achieving it. Schools are accredited depending on the level, and what they specialize in. A school offering different programs may utilize a distinct accreditation system compared to another. Accreditation means a lot to parents and stakeholders who run the school (Matveeva, 2019). Parents will choose the best school with proper accreditation by the relevant agencies compared to the schools that do not meet the standards. Unaccredited schools may cost a lot of harm to a student in his future studies, he might not fit in with other students from accredited schools.

Evaluation can be done internally without involving evaluation agencies. The institutions themselves can do an evaluation regarding the goals, student performance, and the objectives of the school. The main aim of the evaluation is to determine if the school is able to meet its standards. This process is important for an institution that seeks to rate themselves according to specified academic standards. Therefore, accreditation and evaluation differ in terms of roles and the institutions involved. Accreditation is the act of giving credentials, and a checklist of what should be present in a school or institution in order to meet the standards (Yoo et al., 2020). On the other hand, evaluation is an assessment of the school is intended to achieve its goal toward the standard the accreditation agencies had already set. Accreditation is the act of accrediting, while evaluation is the process of completing analysis or a mathematical operation to determine the performance of the institution over a period of time let’s say a year. Accreditation is granting the institution approval to conduct some practices, while evaluation is determining the value of some variables.

There are various ways in which accreditation and evaluation may overlap. For instance, they all utilize regulatory bodies that help in maintaining the recommended standards of education and determining the goals of the institutions. Accreditation follows a guideline to ensure that the institutions comply with some of the rules the agency has put in place (Stura et al., 2019). Similarly, the evaluation process also does the same in ensuring that the educational institutions work on specific goals and objectives to which they must follow to attain the recommended standards of education. Both accreditation and evaluation are to ensure the standards are followed in a certain manner that all the institutions comply with. This means both systems act as governing bodies in institutions that make sure the standard in which the students are taught allows the students to be equal to their peers in other institutions.

In the last few years, agencies that would perform accreditation used to visit every institution and analyze the subjects being taught and the method of learning to which they use. Basically, all the schools were required to use the same curriculum all over the country. However, over time, several institutions emerged and they came up with different teaching skills that could be better. The accreditation agencies began to look for new ways to accredit the institutions. Certain standards were set and these allowed the private institutions to use their own ways of teaching yet maintain the standards of education. The future of accrediting institutions will now base on specific institutions, whereby the institution may set their own standards, and making sure the students are competent enough to face their future careers.

References

Matveeva, O. A. (2019). Development of the Voluntary Accreditation for Study Programmes in Russia. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii= Higher Education in Russia, 28(7), 19-28.

Stura, I., Gentile, T., Migliaretti, G., & Vesce, E. (2019). Accreditation in higher education: Does disciplinary matter?. Studies in educational evaluation, 63, 41-47.

Yoo, H. H., Kim, M. K., Yoon, Y. S., Lee, K. M., Lee, J. H., Hong, S. J., … & Park, W. K. (2020). Changes in the accreditation standards of medical schools by the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation from 2000 to 2019. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 17.

Brionna Boyd