Overview to Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes

Overview to Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes

Ruth Littlefield, NH Department of Education Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst

November 16, 2009

1

In the Beginning- Federal Accountability

• 1994 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

• 2002 Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART)– Both Part C and Part B Preschool categorized as

“Results Not Demonstrated” due to lack of outcome data.

– OMB recommended OSEP develop a strategy for collecting outcome data

Early Childhood Outcomes Center


• Initially, a 5-year project funded by OSEP in October 2003.

• Funded again October 2008 for another 5 years.• Provide national leadership to assist states with

the implementation of high-quality outcomes systems for early intervention and preschool special education programs.

• Provide TA to states, as needed, in measuring child and family outcomes

3

The Development of Outcome Statements

• 2004-early 2005: ECO generates discussion and gathers input on child and family outcomes

• Summer 2005: OSEP announces the child and family outcomes States must report on through their SPP/APRs

Early Childhood Outcomes Center4

Goal of Early Childhood Special Education

“…To enable young children to be

active and successful participants

during the early childhood years

and in the future in a variety of

settings – in their homes with their

families, in child care, in preschool

or school programs, and in the

community.”

(from Early Childhood Outcomes Center,http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pdfs/eco_outcomes_4-13-05.pdf)

Three Child Outcomes

Percent of children who demonstrate improved:– 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



A. Positive Social-Emotional Skills

• Involves:– Relating with adults– Relating with other children– For older children, following rules related to groups or

interacting with others• Includes areas like:

– Attachment/separation/autonomy– Expressing emotions and feelings– Learning rules and expectations– Social interactions and play


B. Acquire and Use Knowledge and Skills

• Involves:– Thinking– Reasoning– Remembering– Problem solving– Using symbols and language– Understanding physical and social worlds

• Includes:– Early concepts—symbols, pictures, numbers, classification,

spatial relationships– Imitation– Object permanence– Expressive language and communication– Early literacy


C. Use Appropriate Behavior to Meet Their Needs

• Involves:– Taking care of basic needs– Getting from place to place– Using tools (e.g., fork, toothbrush, crayon)– In older children, contributing to their own health and safety

• Includes:– Integrating motor skills to complete tasks– Self-help skills (e.g., dressing, feeding, grooming, toileting,

household responsibility)– Acting on the world to get what one wants


Meeting Needs (Continued)

• Includes– Integrating various skills (gross motor, fine motor,

communication skills) to complete tasks– Self help skills (feeding, dressing, toileting,

household task)– Acting on the world to get what he or she wants– Not JUST acting on the world: takes

APPROPRIATE action to meet needs

NH ECSE approach to collecting information on the outcomes

• Outcomes are functional– • Each outcome is integrated

across domains• NH chose to use authentic

assessments• Data can be used for planning

for individuals and groups• And analyzed for OSEP

reportingEarly Childhood Outcomes Center

11

Reporting Child Progress

• December 2005: States submit plans via SPP on how they will collect outcome data

• September 2006: OSEP finalizes the child outcome reporting categories


Child Progress- the % of children who

a. did not improve functioning

b. 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


Key Concepts Related to Progress Categories

• Progress categories require 2 data points for each child,

• are based on growth trajectories,

• compare a child to him or herself over time, and also compare each child to age expectations



15

The “a” category

a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning

– Children who acquired no new skills or regressed during their time in the program

– Didn’t gain or use even one new skill– Children with degenerative conditions/

significant disabilities


16

Entry Exit


17

Entry Exit


18

The “b” category

b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers – Children who acquired new skills but continued to

grow at the same rate throughout their time in the program

– Gained and used new skills but did not increase their rate of growth or change their growth trajectories while in services


19

Entry Exit


20

Entry Exit


21

Entry Exit


22

The “c” category

c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it – Children who acquired new skills but accelerated their

rate of growth during their time in the program– Made progress toward catching up with same aged

peers but were still functioning below age expectations when they left the program

– Changed their growth trajectories --“narrowed the gap”


23

Entry Exit


24

The “d” category

d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

– Children who were functioning below age expectations when they entered the program but were functioning at age expectations when they left

– Started out below age expectations, but caught up while in services


25

Entry Exit


26

The “e” category

e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers – Children who were functioning at age

expectations when they entered the program and were functioning at age expectations when they left

– Entered the program at age expectations and were still up with age expectations at exit


27

Entry Exit


28

Entry Exit

States Submit Data to OSEP in their Performance Reports

• Feb 2007: “status at entry” data

• Feb 2008: child progress data for children who exited 7/1/06 through 6/30/07

• Feb 2009: child progress data for children who exited 7/1/07 through 6/30/08


Number of Children Included in Feb ‘09 SPP/APR Data

Part C (56)

Range: 5-6452

<30 = 3

30-99= 10

100-499= 25

500-999= 6

1000+ = 12

Preschool (59)

Range: 3-10157

<30 = 3

30-99 = 9

100-499= 14

500-999= 10

1000+ = 22

Setting Targets for Improving Child Outcomes

• 2008 and 2009: State input into summary statements to be the basis of target setting

• Currently: summary statements have been out for public comment, and are in SPP Measurement tables

• February 2010: Baseline data and target setting on summary statements

Current Focus across the Country

• Understanding the summary statements

• Ensuring that data is clean before making program changes based on it

• Choosing/ developing strategies that will improve child outcomes


Summary Statement Data

• Required Summary Statement 1:

Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

• Required Summary Statement 2:

The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the program.

34

Example of State Progress Data for 2008-2009

Outcome B: Knowledge, skills, problem solving

Number of

children

% of children

a. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

17 2

b. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

106 14

c. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach

67 9

d. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

169 22

e. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

425 54

Total N=784 100%

Where do the #s come from?

36

Prog cat

# %

a 17 2b 106 14c 67 9d 169 22e 425 54

359 (a, b, c, and d) or 46% of the children entered or exited the program functioning below age expectations

425 (e) or 54% of the children entered and exited functioning at age expectations

% of Children who made greater than expected progress

37

Prog cat

# %

a 17 2

b 106 14

c 67 9

d 169 22

e 425 54

236 (c and d) of the 359 (a, b, c, and d) changed their growth trajectories (made greater than expected progress)

236359

= 66%

% who Exited at Age Expectations

38

Prog cat

# %

a 17 2b 106 14c 67 9d 169 22e 425 54

total 784

169 + 425 784

= 76%

22% of the children reached age expectations by exit and 54% of the children entered and exited at age expectations

What can we say about Outcome B in NH?

• Outcome B: Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills- includes thinking, reasoning, problem solving, language and early literacy

• 98% of children participating in ECSE made progress in this area while they were enrolled.

• The 2% of children who did not make progress included children with the most severe disabilities and/or degenerative conditions. Can you describe them?

39


• 54% of the children participating in ECSE were functioning at age expectations at entry and at exit in this outcome area. Can you describe them?

• 76% of the children were functioning at age expectations in this outcome area when they exited the program. (summary statement 2)– 22% started out behind and caught up– 54% entered and exited at age expectations

40


• 66% of the children who entered the program below age expectations made greater than expected gains, made substantial increases in their rates of growth. i.e. changed their growth trajectories (summary statement 1)

41

Setting Targets for NH ECSE

• Examine data – Data quality– Potential for program

improvement

• Determine what percentages to set for targets for FFY09 and FFY10

42

Timelines

• In Feb, 2010, in SPP format: – Baseline– Targets for 2 reporting years– Improvement activities for 2 reporting years

• In Feb, 2011 and 2012, in APR format– Actual data, progress and slippage, etc.– Local reporting of [summary statement %s]

43

Timelines (continued)

• In Feb, 2011 and Feb, 2012, in public reporting format (District Data Profiles) Compare District Data to State Targets

• Spring 2010, 2011 and 2012: District Determinations for the Implementation of IDEA to include timely and accurate data submission for preschool outcomes


Baseline and Targets: Typical Timelines

45

In Feb, 2010

Actual data= baseline

Targets for FFY 2009


In Feb, 2011

Actual data Compared to FFY 2009 target

Progress or slippage; met or did not meet target

In Feb, 2012

Actual data Compared to FFY2010 target


OR Baseline and Target can be Revised in Feb, 2011

46

In Feb, 2010

Actual data= baseline



In Feb, 2011

Actual data= revised baseline

Compared to FFY2009 target


Revise Target for FFY 2010

In Feb, 2012

Actual data Compared to revised FFY2010 target


Next Steps for NH

• Districts – continue to

complete assessments and enter data

– use data to inform local practice


Next Steps

• State – sets targets for FFY 2010 and FFY 2011– December 15, 2009 – participates in national events– implements improvement activities– POMS Professional Development and Technical

Assistance Plan– Data Quality Analysis


For more information

• www.ed.state.nh.us/education/

• http://ptan.seresc.net/

• www.the-eco-center.org

Date post:	31-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	samuel-charles
View:	34 times
Download:	0 times

Overview to Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes

Documents