Inquiring Families Want to Know: Engaging Families in the Outcome Rating Process Hearing Family Stories Gaining Family Insight Involving Families Adapted from materials developed by Naomi Younggren, 2011 Kathi

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Presenters: Shannon Dunstan, ID Kathi Gillaspy, NECTAC/ECO Pam Miller, MD Judy Swett, PACER/NECTAC Jennifer Zielinski, ID Jennifer Barrett-Zitkus, IL Introduction of speakers Who’s in the room? Turn over to Judy 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference 2

Hearing Family Stories Empower families to be active members of the IFSP/IEP team Encourage them to share their thoughts and ideas with you Not a separate process – it’s really empowering families to be active members of team by asking to hear their stories Encouraging them – may be some prompts that can be used to get the family talking. More specific and deliberate than just asking, “how’s it going?? Can’t separate the COS work from the IFSP or IEP – not just something do at the beginning or end of the year. This begins with evaluation and assessment process; how you initiate the relationship with the family to help them feel empowered and informed. It sets the stage. Don’t hide information (family outcomes) Gathering information in regular meetings with a family about how they see their child making progress. Some of that comes about from talking about outcomes and the strategies developed to address the outcome, checking in with parents about it went, what worked/didn’t worked. We’re assuming that this information is then kept as part of the progress monitoring… As having those regular conversations, are setting the stage for the COS and the rating – it will be more natural. Strong relationships and regular communication allow families 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Gaining Family Insight Setting the stage so families take an active role in interaction Listening Asking good questions Ask for feedback, invite comments/reactions Starts at the initial contact and builds 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Interviewing Pointers Westby, Burda, & Metha, 2003 Use open-ended questions Use restating – repeating the exact words Summarize and invite opportunities to correct Avoid back-to-back and compound questions Avoid leading questions Cautiously use "why" questions Listen more than talk 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Parent Roles Team Member Information Provider & Receiver Participant in the COS rating discussion Equal team member with same respect, collaboration and honest would any other Highlight here that it is NOT accurate to assume that parents don’t want or can’t handle the information in the COS – they WANT and KNOW information. Remember Parent Roles Share EC Outcome Information Early & Often Include EC outcomes information in discussions about progress toward outcomes/goals Include Parents in the COS Rating Discussion 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Share Information Early & Often Red represents all the opportunities throughout the process to share/have conversations about child and family outcomes 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

What We Should Expect from Family Involvement in the COS Rating? Yes! They can provide rich information about their child’s functioning across settings and situation. Maybe They will know whether their child is showing age expected skills. Maybe… But with prompts, can help them understand what IS typical, and where their child is right now. 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference How Families Can Help They know their child best. As a partner on the team they can provide information about how their child: Gets along with family and friends Manages feelings Tries to do new things Communicates new ideas Tries to be independent Seeks help when needed 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

You can't handle the truth!* Families can handle the truth We need to be able to share information with them openly and honestly * Col. Jessup, A Few Good Men 10 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Genuinely engage families in the entire process, appreciate their strengths, and reach agreement with them about their child. -Naomi Younggren 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Talking with Families about Child Outcomes Illinois Early Intervention Training Program 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Illinois 25 Point of Entries (Child and Family Connections) Designated Service Coordinator Model (450) Vender Model Provider Base (5,000) 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference 13

Introduction of Child and Family Outcomes Provider Service Coordinator

Service Coordinator Overload

Illinois EI Training Program Shift Family Service Coordinator Child and Family Outcomes Provider 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Online Trainings

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Online Trainings System Overview Online Understanding the Illinois Child Outcomes Process Online Training The Impact of Early Intervention on Families Online Training 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference

Face to Face Training System Overview Follow-Up Face to Face Outcomes in Action Follow-Up EI Sponsored Trainings EI Institutes EI Cohorts

Provider Forums and LIC Meetings Local Provider Meetings Local Interagency Meetings

(19,622 Active IFSPs)

Direct Opportunities for Family Support on Child Outcomes Referral Intake (Routines –Based Interview ) IFSP Meetings (Decision Tree) Monthly Contact Exit 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference 22

2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference Resources ECO Outcomes Video ECO Center Website Decision Tree EI Training IFSP Video Illinois Training Newsletter and Web Site Illinois Early Intervention Clearinghouse Project Enhance Enhance Comparison with Child Assessments Study, we will compare information about children’s progress that is collected in different ways. We will examine the relationship between the summary rating process the program uses when the child starts and stops receiving services with the scores and progress documented in a formal assessment of the child. The assessment tools are the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI-2) and Vineland Scales of Adaptive Behavior (Vineland-II). Assessments will be given to children near program entry and program exit, around the same time as when teams decide on summary ratings. he Team Decision-Making Study, we will use videos of the child’s team discussing how a child is doing to learn how teams describe a child’s functioning and summarize it with a rating. We will investigate the discussion process the child’s program uses to decide upon the appropriate rating. We will examine who is involved in the discussion, how long it takes, what evidence people describe, and how they use that information to decide on a rating. In the Record Review Study, we will look at information from a child’s records. We will explore how the child was doing when he or she entered the program and the progress the child is making. We will investigate the agreement between the rating, the information documented on the rating form itself, and other information in the child’s record, such as progress notes or practitioner observations. 2012 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference 23

Embedding the ECO Process into Early Childhood IEPs As the Early Childhood Coordinator, I have also been working to evaluate our State’s Early Childhood Outcomes and Early Childhood IEP’s. The Office of Special Education Program has a mandate that each state have accurate and timely reporting around Early Childhood Outcome.

During the last two years, I have worked to evaluate the Early Childhood Outcome – Indicator 7 data and processes for the State. I started by visiting over 75% of all developmental preschool programs, reviewing the Child Outcome Summary Forms for accurate reporting processes, cross walking the student’s entered into the State Early Childhood Outcome data system and student’s reported on District December 1 Counts, and facilitated a statewide survey regarding Idaho’s current ECO process. What I found was disheartening.

During the 2010/2011 school year, Idaho under-represented students reported on December 1 and student’s reported in the Early Childhood Data system by over 1000 students. I then looked at the State required Child Outcome Summary Forms, over a two year period for minimal compliance. To meet minimal compliance the current Child Outcome Summary Form must have included 6 components: It was completed as a team process, and Parent input was documented, and An observation or interview was conducted and that information was reported on the form, and An Anchor Assessment was completed, and Student’s present level of performance was documented in regard to age appropriate skills, immediate foundational skills, and foundational skills, and The rating matched the information that was provided.

Parent involvement was documented less than 32% Documented age appropriate, immediate, and foundational skills less than 26% Student’s ECO rating matched information provided less than 10% Overall minimal criteria for accurate reporting less than 3% of the time This information is based on a cross section of preschool IEP’s reviewed during Child Count Verification during 2011 and 2012 As you can see the result put our Federal Reporting scores into question. Something had to change.

A statewide survey was conducted and sent to all developmental preschool teachers and special education directors from around the state to get their input on the new process. The responses did not align with what was being seen in practice. 70% of Respondents were ECSE teachers 55% have been working 10 or more years 84% respondents ECOs was one of their primary responsibilities 57% were initially trained by SDE 33% received training by a college or not at all

Side by Side Comparison Survey Response Practice Evidence 70% proficient or expert 64% and 59% used team at entrance and exit 88% collected AA, IF, and F 71% used the decision tree 3% met minimal compliance 77% and 86% used team process at entrance and exit 26% in 2012 and 20% in 2011 AA, IF and F documented Rating matched Evidence provided 10% 2012 and 8% In reviewing the documentation and the survey responses there was discrepancy. What respondents thought they were doing and what was found in factual reporting were: 70% of respondents felt they were proficient or expert at completing the ECO process – yet only about 3% of the Outcomes were completed with minimal compliance 64% use a team process to determine entrance and 59% at exit – The sampling did show a high percentage of team process with 77% documenting a team process 2012 and 86% in 2011, however the expectation is 100% utilize a team process 88% collect data on the AA, IF and F during assessment and observations – only 26% noted AA, IF, and F on the COSF-R form in 2012 and only 20% in 2011 and 35% and 29% respectively reported an observation or interview on their COSF-R form. 71% use the decision tree – Only 10% in 2012 and 8% in 2011 did the QA get the same score based on the information provided.

Early Childhood Outcomes are NOT Meaningful Paperwork, just another form more work not related to services provided just what the state says to do not relevant, not a useful tool more time, not enough time to process paper ECO areas are very broad in comparison to IEP goals team does not want to take the time so do it alone not valued by the team to subjective program will not change if ECOs goes away takes time away from teaching current practice lacks, not a true picture of child progress with most challenging students is not reflective in ECO reporting outcomes do not reflect minimal growth of severe students data is more important for developing goals and intervention then reporting outcomes easier to see growth in IEP but not on an anchor assessment Redundant takes time way from kids; more meetings that takes time away from students

Teachers thoughts regarding Parent Input do not understand the need for ECO document ECO is only used to gather information and functional outcomes come out of the IEP as a team process COSF forms takes a lot more prodding of parents for information difficult for parents to answer the question what are my child’s strengths, hard for parents to articulate concerns how much parent input do we need parents don’t know how to make sense of their child in regard to education parent is not a valuable member until parent teacher conferences gathering information from parents is good but not actuate for goal outcome without extensive observations unrealistic to get every parent to give input not parent friendly too long, too many steps do difficult to sit with family and develop IEP and fill out ECOs information makes families really sad to hear skills child is lacking too much grief for parents

So What to Do? Change our perception to emphasize how the ECO process can promote quality programs and growth for children Change how we look at the whole child Change and give value to how we look at outcomes for children Change in attitude Change, change, change.

In cooperation with the National Early Child Outcome Center, Other State 619 Coordinators, School Districts from across the State, Special Education Directors, and Consulting Teachers new preschool IEP/ECO forms were developed, piloted, and modified based on input. THIS REQUIRES EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS TO DO NO ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK. Rather than completing two sets of paperwork, the ECO requirements have ben embedding into our state IEP form.

Partnering with Parents

Parent Training and Information Center Partner with Idaho State Department of Education Educate, train and provide information to parents Ensure parent involvement Parent participation in decision making and planning

Find the following on the ITC: www.idahotc.com Online Learning Community Early Childhood eGuidelines Early Childhood Outcomes Transitions IEPs Best Practice Least Restrictive Environment www.idahotc.com Housed at: Center on Disabilities and Human Development, University of Idaho

Contact Information: Shannon Dunstan Early Childhood & Interagency Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education Division of Student Achievement and School Improvement Division of Special Education (208) 332-6908 sdunstan@sde.idaho.gov

Engaging Families in the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process: A Framework

Engaging Families in the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Video Resource 39 http://marylandlearninglinks.org/11695

Engaging Families in the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Video Viewing Guide 40

Engaging Families: Locally Developed Resources 41

Online COS Tutorial: Bringing It All Together 43

Thank you for coming! www.the-eco-center.org Questions? Thank you for coming! www.the-eco-center.org