Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of

Brionna Boyd
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/measur
ing-what-matters-exercises-03.pdf
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 Langua ge 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 instructio nal 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.pdf
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
.pdf
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
Tip: Use Adobe Spark to create simple web pages & share with
others
Express your creativity in writing, enhance with images, even
incorporate web links, then share. It's as easy as 1-2-3
with Adobe Spark.
Great for journaling, short stories, proposals, and other writing

assignments. View examples.
It's easy - start by creating a free account or download Adobe
Creative Cloud (available through CSUF software for
faculty/staff/students)
To create a page:
Login
Click "+" at the top of the screen (center) > Click Start from
Scratch button (upper right) > Choose Web Page from menu
Add a Title for the web page
Click + then click Photo button. From the pane that appears on
the right, choose Find Free photos > Enter a Search term and
choose one you like
Choose a look: Click Themes link in upper right & click your
desired theme
Scroll to start Writing > Click the Plus "+" & choose Text
(from the array of choices)> Create and format an entry for
your Learning Journal. Add photos, videos, links, and buttons as
needed using the same user-friendly interface just by clicking
"+" and choosing what you want to add
Next Preview. Edit as needed. Click X in upper right
to close Preview.
Click Share > select Publish and Share link > and choose your
Publishing settings (see video demo ). TIP: If you don't want
people outside of your course to find it, toggle Get Noticed
OFF. This will prevent if from coming up in Searches.
ClickCreate link. Then share the link through the TITANium
discussion forum, email, or social media.
TIP: If/when you edit or make future additions, all you need to
do is click Share and Republish. You do NOT need to resend
the link - it will remain constant.
Want to learn more about what Spark can do for you?
Visit Adobe Spark Features.
Have some time? View Editor's Choice and the Adobe
Spark Gallery!

Created by CSUF OET
Play Page Assignment
CAS 464 Asynchronous
Step 1: Complete the following Readings: Part 1 - 5 on Play
from the university of
Michigan Extension and explore other play resources provided
on titanium.
Part 1:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_1_stages
_of_play
Part 2:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_2_born_
to_play
Part 3:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_3_types
_of_play
Part 4:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_4_chara
cteristics_of_play
Part 5:
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_5_adult_
roles_in_childs_play

Step 2: Then, Create an Adobe Sparks Web Page on Play (see
tip sheet); post link on
discussion board.
Using the information from the play series readings, your
course text and other resources (that
you have researched), create an Adobe Sparks "web" page for
parents and educators to learn
about play.
Provide your link in the discussion board posted in Week 8.
Check out at least two classmate’s
webpage and comment on the discussion board with feedback.
Grading Criteria Points
Possible
Points
Given
Play Page
• Play page is submitted on time
• Content is accurate and clearly demonstrates an understanding
of
play and its’ importance
• A variety of sources are used (series, TedTalk, text, etc.)
3 points
Style
• There are little or no grammatical errors
• Page is visually appealing
1 point

Response
• Student responds to at least 2 peers
1 point
This assignment is worth a total of 5 points.
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.
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 w ill 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 w anted 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/nc pfce-
markers-of-progress.pdf://nieer.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/7-1.pdf
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahgefv7waY

Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of

Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of

Similar to Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of (20)

More from VannaSchrader3

More from VannaSchrader3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Brionna Boyd RE Group A Discussion - Module 4COLLAPSETop of