ii workshop internacional - edi information community planning evaluation policy ecd
DESCRIPTION
II Workshop Internacional - EDI Information Community Planning Evaluation Policy ECDTRANSCRIPT
The EDI-Informing community planning,
evaluation and policy for ECD outcomes
Sally Brinkman:
Chief Scientific Officer – Int. EDI Consortium and
National Australian EDI Epidemiologist.
Eric Duku:
Chief Statistician – Int. EDI Consortium and
Chief Statistician – Canadian EDI
“A large number of children at a
small risk for school failure may
generate a much greater burden
of suffering than a small number
of children with a high risk”
(Based on Rose 1992, Offord et al. 1998)
What is the EDI?
• The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a community measure of young children’s development.
• The EDI Checklist consists of around 100 questions completed by the child’s teacher based on their knowledge of the child
• It is designed for use with whole populations of children (based on geographical or administrative boundaries)
• The checklist was originally designed in Canada to measure child development between 4 and 6 years of age.
What is the EDI
• The EDI measures 5 developmental domains:
– Physical health and well-being
– Social competence
– Emotional maturity
– Language and cognitive development.
– Communication skills and general knowledge.
The EDI is a measure of how well the community has raised their children before school. It is an index of the outcomes of early child development and of children’s ability to take advantage of the learning environments offered to them by schooling
Why a community or population
approach?
• It is important to understand and think about the social and environmental influences on child development
• Moving the focus of effort from the individual to the community can make a bigger difference
• Allowing communities the opportunity to “shift the curve” of a whole population and therefore improve outcomes for many children
Low HighOutcome domain
Nu
mb
er
of
Ch
ild
ren
Vulnerability
cut-off
EDI Population curve
Children
performing
well
Average
score
Children
developmentally
vulnerable
Low High
% o
f C
hild
ren
Gap narrows
Targeted
strategies
decrease
numbers of
vulnerable
Universal strategies-entire
population moves
Outcome measure
Uses of the EDI • To report on the early childhood development outcomes
for whole of populations of children, small geographic areas and special populations
• To measure progress over time in improving early childhood development outcomes
• To facilitate community mobilisation around early childhood development through the AEDI implementation process and results
• To enable schools and teachers to look back at the development of children before entering school and look forward to children’s needs once at school
• To make state and territory, national and international comparisons
How the AEDI findings are used
• Stimulate discussions about early child development among teachers, parents, schools, community groups, and policymakers
• Identify communities and neighborhoods where children may be at risk developmentally
• Plan and evaluate ECD initiatives
• Document the effect, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ECD programs.
• Leverage better-informed ECD policies
• Match programs with investment opportunities.
Local
Regional
State
National
Case Studies:
Australia
Indonesia
Canada
Jamaica
Mozambique
Kosovo
Australia
Understanding Early Childhood
Development in Australia• Before the AEDI we had no way of consistently understanding how
children were developing across Australia as they came to the end of their pre-school years
• 2002-2003 North Metro Perth EDI Study (2002 n=200, 2003 n=4500)
• 2003 National meeting of experts to consider whether Australia needed an individual measure or a population measure of ECD. Resounding endorsement for a population measure
• 2004-2007 Development and piloting of the AEDI, overwhelmingsuccess for communities (n=40,000)
• 2007-2008 Agreement by COAG for the AEDI as a national progress measure of ECD for Australia
• 2009 National AEDI Census in recognition of the need for all communities to have local ECD information to improve outcomes for children
National AEDI Results• 24% of Australian children surveyed were
“developmentally vulnerable” on one or more domains of the AEDI
11.9% of Australian children surveyed were “developmentally vulnerable” on two or more domains of the AEDI
67.9% of Australian children surveyed were “performing well” on one or more domains of the AEDI
Australia – AEDI Children 5-6 yrs.%
Vu
lnera
ble
on
at
least
on
e a
rea
of
EC
D
Highest
10%
10%
-25%
25%
-50%
50%
-75%
75%
-90%
Lowest
10%
SEIFA disadvantage
30
20
10
“Janus” communities – exceptions to the rule(healthy deprived areas & unhealthy wealthy areas)
66th %ile
Social disparity increases over timeAs children move from year 3 to year 5, the disparity among
those meeting literacy standards grows
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Year 3 Year 5
Prop
ortio
n M
eetin
g St
anda
rd (%
)
High
Low
Socio-
economic
Status:The Widening Gap
WALNA Data, DoE 2006
Map 15: Level of disadvantage according to the SEIFA index
SEIFA is derived indicators such as low income and educational attainment, high unemployment, jobs in
relatively unskilled occupations and variables that reflect disadvantage. The state quintile categories are
referenced to state. City of Cockburn, WA
Prepared by: AEDI National Support Centre
Source: ABS Census 2001 Basic
Community Profile
AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess
BeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliar
South LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth Lake
YangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebup
CoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogee
Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra Lake
SpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood
CoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellup
Hamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton Hill
SEIFAIndex of disadvantage
1. Most disadvantaged2.3.4.5. Least disadvantaged
Proportion of children vulnerable on one or more domains
Prepared by: AEDI National Support Centre
Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006City of Cockburn, WA
AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwell
SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess
BeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliar
South LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth Lake
YangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebup
CoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogee
Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood
CoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellup
Hamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton Hill
Proportion of children vulnerableN=Percent
49.1 to 53.340 to 49.133.3 to 4018.9 to 33.311.5 to 18.9
Participation in preschool in the year before entering school
Proportion of children that attended preschool program including in a day care centre .
City of Cockburn, WA
Prepared by: AEDI National Support Centre
Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006
CoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogee
AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwell
SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess
BeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliar
YangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebup
South LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth Lake
Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra Lake
CoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellup
SpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood
Hamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton Hill
Preschool participationN=Percent
38.6 to 48.148.1 to 64.364.3 to 83.983.9 to 90.990.9 to 96.3
Prepared by: AEDI National Support Centre
Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006
AEDI Summary Table
Abbreviations used:
Phys Physical health and wellbeing
Soc Social competence
Emo Emotional maturity
Lang Language and cognitive skills
Com Communication and general knowledge
Vuln1 Vulnerable on one or more domains
Vuln 2 Vulnerable on two or more domains
No Total number of children surveyed
Proportion of children developmentally vulnerable Average scores
Suburb No Phys Soc Emo Lang Com Vul 1 Vul 2 Phys Soc Emo Lang Com
Atwell 121 4.3 12.1 9.5 9.5 9.5 20.7 10.3 9.09 8.96 8.65 8.72 8.75
Beeliar 57 16.4 29.1 20.0 26.0 29.1 49.1 32.7 8.50 8.13 7.12 7.02 6.25
Bibra Lake 55 1.9 3.8 3.8 11.3 1.9 18.9 3.8 9.55 8.96 8.60 7.69 8.75
Coogee 28 11.5 3.8 0.0 11.5 3.8 11.5 11.5 9.77 9.06 8.65 7.31 10.00
Coolbellup 17 26.7 20.0 13.3 20.0 26.7 53.3 20.0 7.73 8.96 8.46 7.31 6.25
Hamilton Hill 42 23.1 17.9 17.9 15.4 12.8 33.3 20.5 9.09 8.75 7.31 8.08 7.50
South Lake 50 8.3 8.3 14.6 27.1 12.5 35.4 20.8 9.09 9.17 8.46 7.12 8.44
Success 74 2.9 10.0 7.1 13.0 10.0 21.4 11.4 9.09 8.75 7.50 7.69 8.75
Yangebup 62 10.0 11.7 16.9 25.0 21.7 40.0 28.3 8.64 7.60 7.69 6.92 6.88
Community report – summary table
Mobilizing community action for children
3. Community asset mapping
The AEDI community planning process
1. Identifying areas of particular need
e.g. Mission Australia funds 3 year play group, language program & mums group at school
4. Mobilising community action
2. Assessing the local distribution of children’s
developmental vulnerability
Governance – National AEDI Census
State AEDI Coordinators
Key tasks:
Provide state wide leadership, engage key stakeholders and support communities, schools and
teachers to successfully implement the AEDI
Resources:
State AEDI Coordinator Training and ongoing support from AEDI NSC
Local AEDI Coordinators
Key tasks:
Raise awareness of the AEDI in the
community
Resources:
Community Preparation & Implementation
Guide
Training for communities
Community Strategies Toolkit
Schools and teachers
Key tasks
Teachers complete AEDI Training (1 hour)
and AEDI Checklist
Principals invoice for Teacher Relief
Resources:
AEDI Guide for Teachers
AEDI Teacher Training
AEDI Guide for Principals
National AEDI Partnership (CCCH/TICHR)
Ultimate responsibility for the AEDI Program
National AEDI Support Centre (NSC)
Mapping, analytical, database (ACER), overall project management and support to states
COAG
DEEWR
McMaster
Int. EDI Consortium
Indonesia
ECED Project Challenges
• 12.7 Million (US$) – 2013 (loan)
• Beneficiaries: 738,000 children ages 0 to
6 in 6,000 poor communities (dusuns) in
3,000 villages within 50 districts
• an average of 123 children per dusun
Study Objectives
• To what extent the ECED project improves
children's development, attendance and
readiness for school
• To what extent the ECED project improves
parents awareness and practices
• To what extent the ECED project increases the
availability and utilisation of ECED services
• How do these impacts differ by gender, wealth,
and level of service delivery at baseline
• What factors contribute to success and failures
of the ECED intervention
Challenges
• Community driven project
• Research design
Three components:– Increasing the delivery of ECED services in
targeted poor communities using a Community Development district based approach
– Developing a sustainable system for ECED quality
– Establishing effective program management, monitoring, and evaluation
Data to be collected
• Village characteristics
• Household survey:– Household economy
– Parent background
– Parent knowledge, attitudes, beliefs child rearing
• Child outcome data : indicators of child development across domains
Instruments
• Philippines ECD study (developmental
milestones, anthropometrics, nutrition)
• IFLS (Rand)
• SDQ
• EDI
Canada
“EDI data in conjunction with other data can be used to create, maintain, and monitor community support for programs and policies affecting young children…. Analysis can increase public understanding of the factors which contribute to early child development, inspiring a commitment to fundraising, policy development and other initiatives.”
Source: Canadian Association of Principals – Student Readiness to Learn and the
School Ready to Teach: an Internet Essay and Collection of Selected Documents:
www.schoolfile.com/cap_start/schoolready.html (2003 )
Canadian Normative Data
Collected from 2004/5 to 2006/7
(n=176,621)
• Percent of children scoring low on 1 more
domains = 27%
• Percent of children scoring low on 2 or
more domains = 13.6%
Factors increasing the vulnerability risk
• Child health (low) 2.35
• Gender (boy) 2.32
• Income (low) 2.02
• Family status (not intact) 1.83
• Age (younger half) 1.36
• Literacy (looking at books) 1.35
• Parent smoking 1.29
Source: Janus & Duku 2007
Odds ratios
• Parent-reported neighbourhood quality
(includes playground, safety, health,
transport, presence of families with
children etc.)
• Parent-reported frequency of contacts
with neighbours (talking, visiting)
Source: NLSCY/UEY/EDI 1998/9
Important neighbourhood
variables
Canada: % vulnerable by SES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
very poor poor not poor well-off
%
Source: NLSCY/UEY 1999-2000; EDI 1999-2000
31.929.1
23.1
13.7
Toronto
Survey of response to EDI results
in Ontario and Manitoba
• 68.4% report changes have been made
• Areas of most frequent change: Areas of least frequent change:
Parenting Programs non-profit recreation behaviour programs in schools programs
child and family centres ESL programs for children
library programs
speech/language programs
• Educational programs most likely to be implemented
• Low school readiness associated with higher percentage of Child & Family Centers, and higher percentage of programs aimed at Aboriginal children with special needs
Kosovo
Kosovo
• In collaboration with World Bank
• ECD Programme Evaluation
Objectives
• Assessing using the EDI, whether children who attended ECD centres were more advantaged developmentally over those who did not attend ECD centres
• To gather information on the households of children in the main survey for the assessment of correlates of EDI domains and outcomes
Kosovo
Data Collection
• 1st wave
– Children from 9 municipalities
– Teachers filled out forms
– Test-retest on smaller sample of 51 ECD children
from 2 communities
• 2nd wave
– 111 children selected at random using proportional
allocation to ensure representativeness from all 11
communities
Kosovo
Instruments used
• EDI (teacher filled): short version
developed in collaboration with the World
Bank; translated into Albanian
• Teacher demographics
• Household Form (2nd wave) • Parent interview
Kosovo – sample descriptives
group Variables categories ECD
(n=219) non-ECD (n=241)
Total (n=460)
Gender Females 42.9% 50.2% 46.7%
Attend pre-school Yes 3.7% 0.0% 1.7%
Class child attends One 95% 100% 97.6%
Age based on EDI 6.71 (0.59) 6.96 (0.60) 6.84 (0.61)*
Kosovo: % vulnerable by SES
56.3
30.8
4043.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4
%
Jamaica
Jamaica
• In collaboration with World Bank
• Part of process for establishing a national monitoring system of children from pre-school through Grade 3
• Over 2,000 schools in Jamaica
• School selection using stratified randomization, based on the government’s determinations of rural/urban and small/medium/large.
• All 4 year olds attending the selected schools were included.
• Parental consent eventually determined who participated in the study.
JamaicaInstruments
• Teacher assessments: the EDI (full 2003/4 version)
• Parent assessment: Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales
• Direct assessments : McCarthy Scales of Children’s abilities and PPVT
• SES – demographic and household information from parental interview
Jamaica
Sample description
• Sample size, n = 151
• % females = 49
• # schools = 18
• Mean age at completion 4.8 (0.4)
• Good internal reliability and concurrent
validity
JAMAICA - validity
Language &
Cognitive Dev
Communication
& Gen Knowledge
PPVT .396 .331
McCarthy-verbal .361 .318
-perceptual .401 .346
-quantitative .443 .308
-cognitive memory .371 .312
-cognitive general .448 .383
Jamaica
% vulnerable by SES
18.921.1
34.2
47.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
%
Mozambique
Mozambique
• In collaboration with World Bank
• Pre-pilot
• Full version of EDI adapted for use
• Translation into Portuguese
• Test retest
• Items removed because…
Mozambique – sample descriptives
• Sample size, n = 78
• Mean age = 6.3 years
• % females = 55.1
• # schools = 4
• Teachers
• Good test-retest reliability
Early Development Instrument (EDI)
Versão em Português para Moçambique
Portuguese version for Mozambique
Numero de identificação da escola-Número do aluno
Copie o número do aluno segundo a marcação após a questão ST20 no
questionário para o professor
P[__][__] D[__][__] PA[__][__] L[__][__]APC[__][__]
UR[__]AE[__][__][__]NAF[__][__][__] ESCOLA [__][__] ALUNO [__][__]
Nome da escola: _____________________________________________
Nome do professor: __________________________________________
Nome da criança: ____________________________________________
Data de nascimento da criança: Dia _____/ Mes______/Ano
Sexo da criança: M F
Data em que completou o questionário : Dia _____/ Mes______/Ano
A criança possui necessidades educativas especiais ? Sim Não
Se sim, por favor explique:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________
Língua Materna da criança
Changane Chope Ronga Outra? ______________________
A criança se comunica bem em sua língua materna?
Sim Não Não sabe
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validation studies
• Teacher to parent inter rater reliability
• Teacher to teacher aid inter rater reliability
• Repeat testing intra rater reliability
• Construct and concurrent validity
• Predictive validity
• Rasch psychometric property analyses
• Indigenous and minority culture validation studies
Publications downloadable from:
www.australianedi.org.au and www.offordcentre.com
Adaptation Process
Adaptation• Ethnographic scan (age of schooling etc etc)
• Content validity
• Translation / back translation
• Translation of the teacher guide
• Adaptation to local language, context, deletion/addition of
items (cultural relevance, behaviour constructs)
• Pilot implementation (inter-rater reliability, test-retest, validity
assessment with other instrumentation/assessment)
• License agreement with McMaster Uni, Offord Centre.
EDI vs. Traditional
Evaluation tools
EDI• Impacts at multiple levels of the ecological model
• Can be used as an outcome and predictor
• The data is not to be owned by one organisation and as information is aggregated it can be freely shared amongst varying sectors
• When the data is mapped it provides an easily understandable dissemination strategy that facilitates community engagement and thus mobilisation
• Communities use the results together with other information such as national and local statistics, community, family, andservice provider feedback to develop strategic plans.
EDI• The data prompts service providers to review existing services and
programs and to consider new initiatives that might be needed.
• Prompts universal service provision with the aim to better all children while also reducing future inequality.
• Provides a means to evaluate community development initiatives.
• As more countries utilise the EDI, in the future we will be able to make international, national, jurisdictional and local level comparisons
• Quick, cheap
• Can be completed by teachers, child care workers or parents - as not a diagnostic does not require referral to allied/medical professionals
• Eric Duku – [email protected]
• Sally Brinkman – [email protected]
• www.offordcentre.com/readiness
• www.australianedi.org.au
• http://www.councilecd.ca/internationaledi/