Ready by 5 - Reading by 8
A Birth to Eight Framework for Early Grade Reading
​
New York Child Care, Head Start, UPK
1. NYC Universal Pre-K (UPK) Study (2019)
2. NYC Birth to 5 Early Care and Education (March 2019) - Citizens Committee for Children
3. New York Early Learning Program Data Systems
4. NYS Child Care Demographics (2017)
5. New York Child Care Demographics by County
6. NYS Child Care Facts and Figures - 2017
7. New York (State) Head Start CLASS Assessment
8. New York Child Care Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS)
9. NYC Pre-K CLASS Assessments 2016-17
10. NYC Head Start Delegate Agencies Summary of Findings from the 2016-17
11. NYS Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core
12. Rochester (NY) Early Childhood Assessment Partnership (RECAP) 2017-18 Report
13. NYSED Early Learning Videos
​
Post #1
NYC Universal Pre-K (UPK) Study (2019)
School Settings vs. Community Based Organizations (CBO)
Teachers college – Columbia University
February 2019
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
“…(A)ttaining uniformly high-quality programs is challenging among the multiple and diverse providers that characterize the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC). The National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) at Teachers College has conducted an empirical study of one such pursuit in New York City (NYC), where an ambitious policy initiative, Pre-K for All (PKA), seeks to provide high-quality universal pre-k (UPK).
​
The results of the analyses could inform policymakers nationwide who are trying to enhance ECEC program quality across diverse settings. Launched in the 2014-15 school year, the PKA initiative inherited New York City’s mixed-delivery system in which UPK program oversight is distributed between the city’s Department of Education (DOE) and Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), agencies that historically have been characterized by programs with divergent missions, histories, and capacities.
​
In this context, the city sought to align program quality across settings by creating cross-agency policy documents, offering funding to CBOs that could be used to increase teacher salaries, and joint providing professional development (PD) workshops and instructional coaching.
​
Key Findings:
Classroom process quality varies by setting and auspice.
-
The relationship between PD and teachers’ changes in practice differs by setting, frequency, and content.
-
CBOs and schools use different curricula and assessments, with varying degrees of alignment.
-
CBOs and schools enroll different child populations and render different practices and services for them.
-
Higher teacher turnover and lower compensation at CBOs affect working conditions at CBOs.
​
Professional development. Overall, teachers across both settings were more likely to say that coaching changed their classroom practice “a lot” (52.4%) than did PD workshops (34.9%; <.05). However, less than half of teachers in both settings received coaching at least monthly (45.5% of CBO teachers and 36.4% of school teachers).
​
Teacher turnover, compensation, and working conditions. CBOs were more likely than schools to experience teacher turnover. Two thirds of CBO administrators (68.6%) vs. one-third of school administrators (36.4%) reported that at least one of their UPK teachers had left in the prior year (p<.05).
NYC Birth to 5 Early Care and Education - March 2019
Citizens Committee for Children (CCC)
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
March 7, 2019
​
"In anticipation of the rollout of several requests for proposals as part of the new birth to five early childhood education system, CCC analyzed enrollment data from the Administration for Children’s Services and Department of Education. The analysis provides information to help the general public, advocates and early education providers understand who the system currently serves by age (infant, toddler, 3 and 4 year old) and type of care (family based care, community based center based care, schools)."
​
This analysis presents data on the entire publicly funded system that reaches 123,000 children under five years of age via vouchers as well as contracted care (family based care, community based centers, and schools), and illustrates what we know about the services children are receiving now in the contracted system that the Department of Education is now beginning to rebid.
Post #2
Putting the Pieces Together:
New York Early Learning Program Data Systems
Post #3
January 2019
​
This report presents the results of surveys of New York State and New York City agencies providing services to young children. The surveys, undertaken by the Early Care & Learning Council and the New York State Council on Children and Families, set out to identify the elements of these agencies’ data systems and the accessibility of those elements. The surveys covered six broad dimensions of available early learning data: program and provider supply; enrollment, participant demographics, and demand; early childhood workforce; program quality; outcomes for children and families; and costs and financing. This report represents an important first step to help New York answer key questions through a coordinated early childhood data system.
The report identifies data collection needs and existing structures around the following topics.
​
Table 1: Early Learning Data Systems in New York State and New York City
​
Table 2a: Early Learning Provider Supply Data (Formal/Licensed/Registered)
​
Table 2b: Early Learning Provider Supply Data (Informal)
​
Table 3: Early Learning Enrollment, Demographic and Demand Data
​
Table 4: Early Learning Workforce Data
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
NYS Child Care Demographics (2017)
Post #4
Day Care Center (DCC) – Defined by 18 NYCRR 413.2(b)(1) as “a program or facility which is not a residence in which child day care is provided on a regular basis to more than six children for more than three hours per day per child for compensation or otherwise, except those programs providing care as a school-age child care program as defined in this section.” Outside of New York City, DCCs are issued license certificates and inspected by OCFS. In New York City, DCCs are issued permits and inspected by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).
​
Family Day Care Home (FDC) – Defined by 18 NYCRR 413.2(b)(2) as “a program caring for children for more than three hours per day per child in which child day care is provided in a family home for three to six children.” An FDC program may care for an additional two school aged children when school is not in session. There must be one caregiver for every two children under two years of age in an FDC. FDCs are issued registration certificates by OCFS, and inspected by OCFS, a child care resource and referral agency, a local department of social services, or DOHMH, depending on the county where they are located.
​
Group Family Day Care Home (GFDC) – Defined by 18 NYCRR 413.2(b)(3) as “a program caring for children for more than three hours per day per child in which child day care is provided in a family home for seven to twelve children of all ages, except for those programs operating as a family day care home, which care for seven or eight children.” A GFDC program may care for an additional four school-aged children when school is not in session. There must be one caregiver for every two children under two years of age in a GFDC. GFDCs are licensed and inspected by OCFS, except of inspections in New York City which are conducted by inspected by DOHMH.
Informal Child Care – Legally-exempt family child care and legally-exempt in-home child care.
​
Legally-Exempt Family Child Care – Defined by 18 NYCRR 415.1(h)(1) to include “child care for one or two children provided outside the child’s own home in a residence”, “child care for more than two children provided outside the child’s own home in a residence … for less than three hours per day,” and “child care provided by a relative within the third degree of consanguinity of the parent(s) or step-parent(s) of the child or children except where such relative is a person legally responsible for, or the caretaker relative of, such child or children.” Legally-exempt child care providers must be enrolled with the social services district to be eligible to receive funds for child care services provided under the New York State Child Care Block Grant Program (NYSCCBG).
​
Legally-Exempt Group Child Care – Defined by 18 NYCRR 415.1(i) as care provided by those caregivers, other than caregivers of informal child care, which are not required to be licensed or registered in New York State. Legally-exempt child care providers must be enrolled with the social services district to be eligible to receive funds for child care services provided under the NYSCCBG.
​
Legally-Exempt In-Home Child Care – Defined by 18 NYCRR 415.1(h)(2)(i) as “child care furnished in the child’s own home.” Legally-exempt child care providers must be enrolled with the social services district to be eligible to receive funds for child care services provided under the NYSCCBG.
​
Local Departments of Social Services (LDSSs) – New York State is divided into 58 local social services districts, one for each of 57 counties outside of New York City, and one for New York City, which is made up of five counties (also called boroughs). Each district’s department of social services administers publicly funded social services and cash assistance programs, such as the child care subsidy program.
​
Market Rates – Maximum reimbursement rates for expenditures for child care service funded under the NYSCCBG. Market rates are based on the most recent local child care market rate survey conducted by New York State. Market rates must be sufficient to ensure equal access for families eligible for child care subsidies compared to families who are not eligible to receive subsidies. Market rates are established for different types of child care providers, ages of children, county groupings, and duration of care.
New York State Child Care Block Grant (NYSCCBG) – A combination of federal and state funds are allocated to local departments of social services to provide child care subsidies to families receiving temporary assistance (TA) and to other low-income families who need help paying for child care.
​
School-Age Child Care (SACC) – Defined by 18 NYCRR 413.2(b)(4) as “a program or facility which is not a residence in which child day care is provided to an enrolled group of seven or more children under 13 years of age during the school year before and/or after the period such children are ordinarily in school or during school lunch periods. School-age child care programs also may provide care during school holidays and those periods of the year in which school is not in session, including summer vacation. SACCs are issued registration certificates by OCFS, and inspected by OCFS, a child care resource and referral agency, a local department of social services, or the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), depending on the county where it is located.
​
Small Day Care Center (SDCC) – Defined by 18 NYCRR 413.2(b)(5) as “a program or facility which is not a residence in which child day care is provided to three through six children for more than three hours per day per child for compensation or otherwise.”
New York Child Care Demographics by County
Example: Schenectady County
Post #5
NYS Child Care Facts and Figures - 2017
Post #6
Post #7
New York (State) Head Start CLASS Assessment
In 2012 seventeen of New York’s 241 Head Start programs were evaluated in the CLASS during the triennial OHS Monitoring review. Additional program samplings will be evaluated each year, however at this point in time it is important to note that the data discussed in this section is a very small sample of New York’s Head Start programs and cannot be used as an average.
New York Child Care
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS)
​
Post #8
Post #9
NYC Pre-K CLASS Assessments 2016-17
NYC Head Start Delegate Agencies
Summary of Findings from the 2016-17
​
​
​
​
The following are among the more significant findings of the 2016-2017 Program Information Report.
​
Enrollment
• During this operating period, 15,237 children were served in ACS Head Start delegate agencies. All received full day services, and 59.2% of the capacity was funded to receive services for at least 10 hours per day.
​
• Three year olds accounted for half of the grantee’s enrollment, while four year olds made up 47.5%.
​
• Just over 68% of children were enrolled based on income eligibility and another 15.5% of the children were enrolled based on receipt of public assistance. Approximately 5% of children were enrolled based on their status as homeless, and another 1.2% were in foster care. The remaining 10% of enrolled children were from families with incomes above 100% of the federal poverty level.
​
• Approximately 11% of children enrolled during the year dropped out.
​
• A total of 6,582 children, enrolled at the end of the 2016-2017 enrollment year were projected to enter kindergarten in September 2017.
​
• 50.2% of enrolled children were Hispanic or Latino; 40.5% were Black or African American. Moreover, English is the dominant language of fewer than half the enrolled children (47%), with 36.3% speaking predominantly Spanish.
Post #10
Post #11
NYS Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core
Post #12
Rochester (NY) Early Childhood Assessment Partnership (RECAP) 2017-18 Report
Post #12
RECAP began in 1992 as a collaboration of the United Way of New York State, the Rochester Area Community Foundation, the Rochester City School District (RCSD), Center for Governmental Research (CGR), Action for a Better Community (ABC), County of Monroe and Children’s Institute. Since its inception, one of RECAP’s overall guiding tenets has been to continuously promote, ensure, and improve the quality of pre-kindergarten (pre-k) classroom experiences through the use of an integrated and comprehensive information system. In addition to providing information to enhance children’s, teachers’, and systems’ performance, RECAP works to translate collected data into usable information for parents, providers, and policy makers. This resulted in informed and targeted interventions for children, professional development activities for providers, and changes in policy by funders and governments. Throughout its history, RECAP collaborated with many partners, including foundations, local governments, public and parochial schools, Head Start programs, and early education teachers at multiple schools and community-based organizations.
​
Each year, RECAP provides important services – primarily to providers and policy makers – which include:
​
-
Professional development for teachers and program administrators in the use of child screening measures, assessments, and rating scales and the interpretation of reports.
​​
-
Efficient and user-friendly data collection and feedback reports, with reports looped back to teachers and directors using COMET® system reports, which provide instant feedback, and paper reports, when desired, at the child, classroom, program, and system levels.
​
-
Training for teachers, administrators and observers on fidelity implementation and quality indicators of the standards assessed with the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, third edition (ECERS-3) and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS).
​​
-
Twice monthly review and planning meetings with community-based organizations including: ABC Head Start, RCSD, University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Institute and other early education community leaders and evaluators to analyze and synthesize available information, recommend changes, and monitor the systematic quality of early education in Rochester.
​​
-
Quarterly Community Advisory Group meetings to facilitate support and direction from and to the community.
​​
-
Community presentations of aggregate results to facilitate understanding of outcomes for pre-kindergarten children and to support informed decision making.
​​
In sum, information-based decisions are integrated into a continuous improvement system that strives to ensure and maintain high quality pre-k programs and improve students’ overall performance and outcomes. RECAP uses reliable and valid measures to assess program quality and student outcomes. Throughout RECAP’s 24-year history, the ECERS (or its updated version, the ECERS-3) has been implemented to study classroom quality. Starting seven years ago, the CLASS, a relatively “new” measure at that time, was piloted with random subsamples of RECAP classrooms. The pilot lasted from 2009 to 2012; approximately 30 classrooms per year, 95 classrooms overall, were randomly selected to receive CLASS training and observations.
​
During the pilot phase, analyses repeatedly showed that, while both the ECERS and CLASS assessed classroom quality, the quality indicators within the CLASS and those within the ECERS-R were different. Therefore, starting the 2012-2013 school year, all RECAP classrooms were observed with the CLASS instrument, as well as the ECERS-R. The 2017-18 school year marks the sixth year that the CLASS instrument was used to assess all RECAP classrooms.
​
To measure levels of students’ competencies and needs within academic, motoric, and noncognitive or social/emotional domains, the Child Observation Record - Advantage (CORAdvantage or COR+) was completed three times -- fall, early winter and spring. The TeacherChild Rating Scale (T-CRS) was completed in the fall and again in the spring. In keeping with national trends, state requirements, and local needs and for screening children early in the school year, the Brigance Early Childhood Screen III (Brigance III) was also used as a screening tool within the first 90 days that students began their pre-k year.
Early Pre-K (EPK) (3 year-olds)
Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECRES-3)
Early Pre-K (3 year-olds)
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)
NYSED Early Learning Videos
Post #13
The videos include quality learning environments for:
-
Pre-Kindergarten
-
Kindergarten
-
1st and 2nd Grades
​​
"Check out our (NYSED's) new Early Learning Video Series, which provides examples of purposeful, play-based instructional strategies that help children develop critical foundational skills in the early grades.
​
"In the early grades, it is particularly important for educators to recognize and provide a balance between individual and group needs, active and quiet times, teacher-directed and child-selected activities, and English and home language development. Teachers influence what and how children learn by creating an environment that reflects developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate practices and instruction. Intentional planning provides a framework for learning that is culturally and linguistically responsive, playful, interactive and interdisciplinary.
​
"The videos in this series provide support for educators in creating quality learning environments - in addition to quality curriculum, instruction, and assessment - for children in Prekindergarten through Grade 2 classrooms."
​