« So How Did California Win an ELC Grant, Anyway? | Main | Focus on ELC Focus Areas: It's D-Liteful! »

Focus on ELC Focus Areas: What Do You C?

This week, I'm going to be taking a look at ELC Focus Areas--3 sections of the ELC application in which states were allowed to make some choices about what elements to address, as opposed to the 2 Core Areas in which states had to address all components. The Focus Areas and Core Areas each counted for 140 points of the application's total 300 possible, with an additional 20 points available for addressing two "Competitive Preference Priorities" worth 10 points each.

As I mentioned last week, California's unexpected win in the Early Learning Challenge competition owed a great deal to its savvy choices and strong performance in the ELC Focus Areas, so it's worth taking a closer look at these areas, starting today with section C.

Section C of ELC included 4 different components:


  • Early Learning and Development Standards

  • Comprehensive Assessment Systems

  • Identifying and addressing Health, Behavior, and Developmental Needs, and

  • Engaging and Supporting Families.

States applying for ELC had to address at least 2 of these, but could address all 4. A total of 60 points available for the section were divided among the number of categories the state chose to address. (So if a state chose to address 4 sections, each would be worth 15 points; if a state chose to address 2 sections, each would be worth 30. Because this complicates comparing state scores, I've chosen to look at them based on the percentage of total possible points earned by a state in each section, given its choices).

Of the 35 states (+ D.C. and Puerto Rico) that chose to apply for ELC:


  • 17 addressed 2 parts of Focus Area C

  • 13 addressed 3 parts

  • 7 addressed all 4 parts

Of the nine states that won grants:


  • 2 (Maryland and North Carolina) addressed all 4 parts

  • Massachusetts addressed 3 parts

  • The remaining 6 states addressed 2 parts

Which parts did states choose to address?


  • C(1): Early Learning and Development Standards, was definitely the most popular section to address, with only two states (Arkansas and Iowa) not choosing to address it. All the winning states addressed this section. States generally performed better on this section than others, with the average percentage of points earned (76%), median (77%), and range (37-98%) about 10 percentage points higher than those for other sections. California, Delaware, and Maryland did particularly well on this section, with California earning a near-perfect score.


  • C(2): Comprehensive Assessment Systems was answered by 25 states, including 6 winning states (Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Maryland). The median % of points earned by states answering this section was 71% and the range was 19-89%. Ohio performed particularly well on this section.

  • C(3): Health, Behavior and Developmental Needs was the least popular section, with only

  • 20 states choosing to address it. 4 winning states (Delaware, North Carolina, California, and Maryland) addressed this section. The median % of points earned by states answering this section was 63% and the range was 19-91%. Delaware and North Carolina performed the best on this section.

  • C(4) Engaging and supporting parents and families was addressed by 22 states, including 4 winning states (Massachusetts, Washington, North Carolina, and Maryland). The median % of points earned by states answering this section was 65% and the range was 32-90%. Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania performed particularly well on this section.

  • In general, the states that scored well on Focus Area C are the same states that scored well on the ELC as a whole. Had the application been scored solely on states' performance on Focus Area C, the 9 highest scoring states would have been: Delaware
    California, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Mexico. Maryland would have been one of the 9 highest ranking states on this Core Area if it had addressed only the 2 focus areas in which it received the highest scores (Standards and Health/Behavior/Development) rather than all 4. It does not appear that any states that did not win the competition would have won had they chosen to address fewer components of this focus area.

    You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login |  Register
    Ground Rules for Posting
    We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
    All comments are public.

    Advertisement

    Recent Comments

    Archives

    Categories

    Technorati

    Technorati search

    » Blogs that link here

    Tags

    AFT
    Alex Grodd
    Ana Menezes
    Andrew Kelly
    appropriations
    ARRA
    Aspire Public Schools
    authorizing
    Better Lesson
    Bill Ferguson
    certification
    charter schools
    child care
    children's literature
    choice
    civil rights
    CLASS
    Core Knowledge
    curriculum
    D.C.
    democracy
    early childhood
    Early Learning Challenge Grant
    economics
    elections
    English language learners
    entrepreneurship
    equity
    Evan Stone
    fathers
    finance
    fix poverty first
    Hailly Korman
    harlem children's zone
    HEA
    Head Start
    head start
    health care
    Higher Education
    home-based child care
    homeschooling
    housing
    How we think and talk about pre-k evidence
    i3
    IDEA
    income inequality
    instruction
    international
    Jason Chaffetz
    Jen Medbery
    just for fun
    Justin Cohen
    Kaya Henderson
    Kenya
    kindergarten
    KIPP
    Kirabo Jackson
    Kwame Brown
    land use
    LearnBoost
    libertarians
    LIFO
    literacy
    Los Angeles
    Louise Stoney
    Mark Zuckerberg
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Memphis
    Michelle Rhee
    Michigan
    Mickey Muldoon
    Neerav Kingsland
    New Jersey
    New Orleans
    NewtownReaction
    Next Gen Leaders
    Next Gen leaders
    nonsense
    NSVF Summit
    NYT
    organizing
    parent engagement
    parenting
    parking
    pell grants
    politics
    poverty
    PreK-3rd
    presidents
    principals
    productivity
    QRIS
    Race to the Top
    Rafael Corrales
    redshirting
    regulation
    religion
    rick hess
    Roxanna Elden
    RTT
    san francisco
    school choice
    social services
    SOTU
    special education
    Stephanie Wilson
    stimulus
    story
    Sydney Morris
    tax credits
    Teacher Prep
    teachers
    technology
    Title I
    unions
    urban issues
    Vincent Gray
    vouchers
    Waiting for Superman
    Washington
    West Virginia
    zoning