Presented at ECEA-SCASS Meeting
Savannah, GeorgiaOctober, 2010
OSEP Initiatives on Early Childhood Outcomes
Kathy Hebbeler
Early Childhood Outcomes Center
SRI International
Topics
• What state are required to report
• State approaches
• Most recent data
• Child Outcomes Measurement Framework
2Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Reporting Requirement for
Early Intervention and
Preschool Special Education
3Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Why does the federal government want data on child outcomes?
• Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA)
• Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
• Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA)
Requires goals and indicators be established for
IDEA
Indicators and data collection for school age
population included data on outcomes
Previously, for early childhood data had been
collected on:
• Number of children served (Part C)
• Settings (both Part C and 619
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed in 1993
Early Childhood Outcomes Center
130 programs examined in 2002; 50%
programs had no performance data
Programs looking at inputs, not results
Part C and Section 619
No long-term child outcome goals or data
Department of Education needs to develop
a strategy to collect annual performance
data in a timely manner
OSEP: PART evaluation results (2002)
SEC. 616. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1416.>> MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT. ``(a) Federal and State Monitoring.…..
(2) Focused monitoring.--The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities described in paragraph (1) shall be on-- (A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities;
IDEA 2004
8
OSEP Reporting Requirements: Child Outcomes
– Positive social emotional skills (including positive social relationships)
– Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy)
– Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
What States Report:OSEP Reporting Categories
Percentage of children who:
a. Did not improve functioningb. Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move
nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
c. Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
d. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
e. Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 10
Reporting details
• Progress for all children who exited between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010
• Stayed in the program at least 6 months
• Data will be reported to OSEP in February 2011
• Data reported for the first time for children who exited in 07-08 year.
11Early Childhood Outcomes Center
The Summary Statements
1. Of those children who entered the program below
age expectations in each outcome, the percent who
substantially increased their rate of growth by the
time they turned 3 [6] years of age or exited the
program.
2. The percent of children who were functioning within
age expectations in each outcome by the time they
turned 3 [6] years of age or exited the program.
12
Formula for SS 1
(c+d)/(a+b+c+d)
1313
Formula for SS 2
(d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)
14
State approaches
15Early Childhood Outcomes Center
16Early Childhood Outcomes Center
17Early Childhood Outcomes Center
State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes
Approach
Part C
(56 states/jur)
Preschool
(59 states/jur)
One tool statewide 7/56 (13%) 9/59 (15%)
Publishers’ online analysis
3/56 (5%) 6/59 (10%)
COSF 7 pt. scale 41/56 (73%) 38/59 (64%)
Other 5/56 (9%) 7/59 (10%)
Child Outcomes Rating Form (COSF)
• 7-point rating scale with defined criteria for each point
• Criteria describe child’s functioning relative to same aged peers
• Child’s team uses multiple sources of information to assign rating
• Rating assigned at program entry and program exit
19Early Childhood Outcomes Center
The State Data
for ‘08-’09
20Early Childhood Outcomes Center
N=66,000
N=113,700
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 27
A Framework and Self Assessment
for Building a Child Outcomes
Measurement System
Purpose of the Framework
• Provide a common language for ECO and other TA providers to use in discussing COMSs with states.
• Provide a organizing structure of categorizing resources and state examples related to implementation of a COMS.
• Serve as the organizing structure for the self assessment
28Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Framework and Self-Assessment
• FRAMEWORK– Set of components and quality indicators– Provides the structure for the self-assessment
• SELF-ASSESSMENT – Scale that provides criteria for levels of
implementation within each quality indicator– Rating assigned based on level of
implementation within each indicator 29
Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Process for Framework Development
• Built off what we had learned from ECO work with states and previous ECO conceptual framework
• Literature review• Repeated discussion and
review internally and with 7 Partner States
30
Framework Partner States
State Part C 619
California X
Colorado X X
Delaware X X
Maine X X
Minnesota X X
New York X
Ohio X X
31
Early Childhood Outcomes Center32
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 33
The state has effective procedures for collecting,
storing, and transmitting data to the state.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 34
State coordinates child outcomes measurement and data use across EC
systems.
Quality Indicator
• Provides additional detail as to what constitutes quality implementation of the component.
• 18 quality indicators across the 7 components
35Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Quality Indicators for Data Collection and Transmission
2. Data collection procedures are carried out efficiently and effectively.
3. Providers, supervisors, and others involved in data collection have the required knowledge, skills, and commitment.
4. State's method for entering, transmitting, and storing data is effective and efficient.
36Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Structure of Self Assessment
• Components (7) = Major areas of framework
– Quality Indicators (18 total) = Statements of basic requirements of a quality COMS
• Elements (number varies with each indicator) = Define what constitutes high quality on the Quality Indicator.
37Early Childhood Outcomes Center
38Early Childhood Outcomes Center
39Early Childhood Outcomes Center
40
41Early Childhood Outcomes Center
42
The Scale for the Quality Indicators
43Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Implementation of Elements
Quality Indicator
ScoreAll elements are fully implemented 7
Nearly all elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process 6Most of the elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process. 5
At least one element is fully implemented and the rest are in process 4
All of the elements are in process 3
Some of the elements are in process 2
None of the elements are yet in process 1
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 44
Recommended State Approach for Using the Self Assessment
1. Complete the entire self assessment.
2. Identify the component(s) and quality indicators to address first.
3. Develop action plan to improve the related elements.
4. Implement improvement activities.
5. Re-assess status and identify “next step” priorities at regular intervals
45Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Is and Isn’t
• Is a comprehensive resource to alert states to all the pieces that need to be in place to have a well functioning COMS
• Is not a cookbook or roadmap with each step in the process spelled out.– Way too many decisions!
46Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Where would a state start?
47Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Packaging
• Entire tool will exist online– Live link from each element to a “back up”
section– Profile will be filled automatically based on the
QI pages• Will develop a version with live links to the back
up and profile that will operate off line.• Version that can be printed off as a manual.
48Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Next steps for ECO
• Populate the COMS framework with resources related to the components
• Revise the self assessment based on feedback
• Develop a framework for a Family Outcomes Measurement System
49Early Childhood Outcomes Center
System for Producing Good Child and Family Outcomes
Good Federal
policies and programs
Good State policies
and programs
High quality services and supports for children 0-5
and their families
Good outcome
s for children
and families
Good Local policies
and programs
Information infrastructure
Evidence Based Practice
Adequate funding
Strong Leadership
Prof’l Development•Preservice•Inservice
Early Childhood Outcomes Center 51
Early Childhood Information Infrastructure:
Data Needed for Program Improvement
WHO SERVICES
COSTPERSONNEL
OUTCOMES
For more information
• For updates to the framework and the self-assessment and resources to support the quality indicators:
www.the-eco-center.org
52Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Top Related