and Mobilizing EDI 1 Christine Beresford, Data Analysis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (EDI): A Population-Based Measure for Communities Interpreting and Mobilizing EDI 1

Christine Beresford, Data Analysis Coordinator 255-5200 ext 5136 cberesford@city.windsor.on.ca 2

Today‟s Presentation  The Early Development Instrument (EDI)  Benefits, Macro-level and Micro-level Reports  Local Highlights  Interpreting EDI Results  Next Steps 3

 A teacher-completed questionnaire (for each Senior Kindergarten student) measuring the outcome of the early years by providing information on children’s readiness to learn at school  Completed 3 times in 3-year cycles in Windsor- Essex. Last completed in the 2007-2008 school year  Completed in most Provinces in most communities and many other Countries since 1997 http://www.offordcentre.com 4

 It measures children’s readiness to learn as they enter the school system, in 5 domains of development:  physical health and well-being,  social competence,  emotional maturity,  language and cognitive development, and  communication skills and general knowledge  Divided further into 16 ‘sub - domains’ which can really highlight Neighbourhood differences. Children are mapped by the postal code where they live 5

On Track Not On Track 25 50 15 10 Very Ready Ready At risk Vulnerable 100-75% 75-25% 25-10% 10% The EDI average scores for each of the 5 developmental areas or “domains” are divided into categories representing the highest scores to the lowest scores in the community. Children that score in the lowest “10 th percentile” are considered „vulnerable‟ and not ready to learn in school. 6

 Provides information about groups of children in order to  report on areas of strengths and weaknesses for populations of children,  establish base-lines,  monitor populations overtime, and  predict how children will do in school  Data-Analysis Coordinators from Ontario Early Years Centres are the local EDI Coordinators and its their job to help put it all into local context http://www.offordcentre.com 7

MCYS Strategic Framework 2008-2012 Realizing Potential: Our Children, Our Youth, Our Future Source: MCYS 8

Ont.ario.ca/breakingthecycle “25 in 5” – A Bold The Opportunity Wheel But Achie hievable le Target et  Represents 90,000 children living in poverty (reduction of 25% in 5 years)  DACs have a role in measuring and monitoring changes in some of the community data  Poverty Reduction strategies, EDI implementation and analysis, Full-Day Learning planning and outcomes, Early Years Programming, etc. Source: MCYS 9

EDI and the Poverty Reduction Plan Question: Are investments effectively minimizing the effects of poverty on young children and families?  A steeper line indicates greater inequalities for low income families  A flat line indicates greater equality of outcomes for families  Decreasing the slope of the line indicates that investments are better able to support low income children and families; that children from low income families are supported to the degree that they are able to achieve the same level of outcomes as non-disadvantaged children current % Vulnerable Children desired % low income Source: 10 MCYS

Why “Mapping”?  Transforms simple and complex, small or lengthy tables, files and reports into a simple visual and spatial representation  Users understand the data more quickly  Helps spot vulnerabilities, strengths and service gaps  Facilitates sharing and collaborative processes  Can be customized for local needs  Outcomes can be monitored and compared over long periods of time “Yuck, who has time for this?” 11

A simple ‘mapping’ Community Health example… stakeholders Unit SPSS Database by postal code of low birth weights School l Create a Visual Board Excel spreadsheet of Representation school names and addresses Question: Where are the lowest birth weights in Data Sources comparison to early learning supports? OEYC OEYC printed Network advertisement with Coordination of map of locations Data Collection or Analysis Word listing of Child ldcare Data Physical Health & Well- Coalit itio ion Childcare Centres and Analysis sis Being Domain Coordinator locations Map 12

Macro-level Reporting “Big Picture” or “Global” vs. Micro -level reports at the Neighbourhood level  Pan-Canadian EDI (http://www.councilecd.ca/?q=edi)  Provincial (baseline) and National Group reports  Site Reports and Group Comparisons 13

Group Comparisons  These groups scored statistically significantly higher than (less vulnerable) their counterparts:  Girls and children that attended JK in all 5 domains  Children born earlier in the year and children in French immersion, particularly for Emotional Maturity  Children that attended part-time pre-school programs scored higher or equal for Physical Health & Well-being, Language and Cognitive Development and General Knowledge and Communication.  This includes “only pre -school programs that do not provide main (full- day) child care arrangements, are not part of a child care centre, and do not involve an intervention/therapy/resource component. These may be weekly music/art classes, twice-weekly regular morning playgroup programs etc.” 14

Group Comparisons These groups scored statistically significantly lower than (more vulnerable) their counterparts:  Children who attended Early Intervention Programs in all 5 domains  Children with ESL/FSL status in all 5 domains, except for Physical Health and Well-being  Children who had a full-time non-parental child care arrangement scored lower than those who attended part- time non-parental child care. Significant for Physical Health & Well-being  This includes "Centre-based, licensed, for profit and non-profit child care, home-based licensed and unlicensed with or without a relative and care in the child’s home with our without a relative”. Full-time is at least 6 hrs/day, 5 days a week. 15

Group Comparisons  Overall, children who attended schools of the French Catholic Board, CSDESCO, scored higher for Physical Health & Well-being, but lower for Emotional Maturity. This was consistent with other francophone communities in Ont.  67% of the children from CSDESCO had French as a second language and English as a first. So ESL/FSL status had less impact as on those with neither  Children (from all school boards) whom the teachers felt needed further assessment and were included in the normative data, scored similarly to those that had been formally assessed 16

Micro-Level Reporting  School level (confidential) and Neighbourhood (Public) level analysis highlight differences, weaknesses and strengths in not only the ability of the preschool population but also our community’s ability to assess its early years supports and mobilize the data  EDI data can not explain the differences and other data (i.e. demographics) and exploration by community partners is needed  Can be subject to personal interpretation 17

Consistent use of boundaries, baseline measures and data is key to sharing data, making comparisons and tracking changes 18

Local Highlights  Only children that were not identified as having special needs and had a valid questionnaire were included in the current map set and reports. This includes 4,040 students from 3 school boards  A separate group report was prepared by the Offord Centre for those with special needs. This includes 169 students, with nearly 70% male, 17% ESL/FSL, 5% Fr. Immersion, and 38% having multiple challenges 19

Local Highlights — Strong Neighbourhoods 4 neighbourhoods where the percentage of vulnerable children was less than the Ont. baseline in all domains and Sub-domains:  East Riverside,  Roseland,  South Windsor and  South Tecumseh This represent 637 students or 15.8% of total sample 20

Local Highlights — Vulnerable Neighbourhoods  2 domains that might be of most concern are Physical Health and Well-Being and Language and Cognitive Development , when looking at percentages of children in the lowest 10 th percentile  All neighbourhoods scored the same or higher than the Ont. Baseline for the Physical Independence sub- domain and East Windsor did for all 3 sub-domains (phwb)  Several neighbourhoods had higher percentages than Ont. for all 4 sub-domains of Language and Cognitive Development – Walkerville, Harrow, Forest Glade, Cottam, Gosfield North and South, Lakeshore East and the Town of Leamington 21

Local Highlights — Vulnerable Neighbourhoods  MCI (Multiple Challenge Index) – areas of concern are the Towns of Leamington and Amherstburg, but sample size also increased. Windsor east of downtown still a concern, ie. Walkerville, East Windsor, Fountainbleu, Riverside and Forest Glade. Possible improvement in LaSalle South, Town of Essex and Rochester  The ‘Vulnerable Neighbourhoods Tables’ focus on those with a higher MCI, but also show other neighbourhoods that have both a high percentage and high count of students with low scores. For example, Remington Park, Sandwich, University and the Stoney Point/Lakeshore East neighbourhoods. Also note the Town of Leamington 22

Consistent use of boundaries, baseline measures and data is key to comparison and tracking changes 936 Students Site total = 23.2% Ont total = 27.3% 23