Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement Kansas Division for Early Childhood Annual Conference Feb. 23rd 2012 Tiffany Smith, KSDE Phoebe Rinkel KITS Carla Heintz, KITS Chelie Nelson, KITS 1

Agenda Overview of the Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data Kansas Data Drill Down Guide Examining Policies and Procedures Examining APR Reports Examining ECO Addendum Reports Examining Data Verification Examining Child Level Data in OWS 2

Early Childhood Outcomes OSEP required states to submit outcome data in their State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 2010 – 2011 (Federal Fiscal Year 2009) first year Districts and Part C Networks were compared to State targets 3

The Three Early Childhood Outcomes 1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) 2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy*]) 3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs *for 3-5 4

How Kansas Early Childhood Outcome Data is Reported 5

FunctioningFunctioning Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 6

Entry Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 7

EntryExit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 8

EntryExit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 9

States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: a) Did not improve functioning b) Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers c) Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it d) Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers e) Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 10

How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e a. % of children who did not improve functioning Rated lower at exit than entry; OR Rated 1 at both entry and exit; AND Scored “No” on the progress question (b) Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 11

EntryExit a Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 12

EntryExit a Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 13

How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e b. % of children who improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to same aged peers Rated 5 or lower at entry; AND Rated the same or lower at exit; AND “Yes” on the progress question (b) Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 14

EntryExit b Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 15

EntryExit b Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 16

EntryExit b Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 17

How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e c. % of children who improved functioning to a nearer to same aged peers, but did not reach it c. % of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same aged peers, but did not reach it Rated higher at exit than entry; AND Rated 5 or below at exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 18

EntryExit c Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 19

EntryExit c Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 20

How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e d. % of children who improve functioning to reach a level comparable to same- aged peers Rated 5 or lower at entry; AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 21

EntryExit d Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 22

How changes in ratings on the COSF correspond to reporting categories a - e e. % of children who maintain at a level comparable to same-aged peers e. % of children who maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Rated 6 or 7 at entry; AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 23

EntryExit e Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 24

EntryExit e Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 25

EntryExit e Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 26

Summary Statements For Reporting Progress on Targets 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. c+d __ a+b+c+d Required Summary Statement 2: The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the program. d+e __ a+b+c+d+e 27

State ECO Targets FY 2009 (Reported on March 15, 2011) Outcome 1Outcome 2Outcome 3 Summary Statement 1 % of children who moved closer to same age peers Part C = 57.53% Part B = 85.93% Part C = 61.14% Part B = 86.38% Part C = 66.99% Part B = 86.24% Summary Statement 2 % of children who exited at age level Part C = 56.33% Part B = 65.16% Part C = 47.44% Part B = 63.60% Part C = 63.44% Part B = 76.79% 28 State targets change each year, be sure to use the most current data for your data drill down

Purpose Developed as a tool for local Part B Preschool Special Education Programs To identify components of a high quality system To evaluate their existing Indicator 7 Data To encourage decision making that will support program improvement efforts 29

5 Sections for Examining Local Data Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting District APR Data Addendum Report Data Data Verification Child Level Data from OWS 30

Each Section includes; Information about the data to be examined and where it can be found Questions to Guide your Review Process Action Planning Form 31

Action Plan 32

Suggested Use Local Implementation Team Part of an ongoing strategic planning process May be completed in total or in sections Reassess periodically 33

Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting Administrator Quality Rating Checklist Data Entry Quality Rating Checklist Direct Service Provider Quality Rating Checklist Questions to Guide the Review Process (pg. 4 Data Drill Down Guide) 34

Why it’s Important  If you conclude the data are not (yet) valid, they cannot be used for program effectiveness, program improvement or anything else.  What do you do if the data are not as good as they should be?  Answer: Continue to improve data collection through ongoing quality assurance Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 35

Many Steps for Ensuring Quality Data Before Good data collection/Training Good data system and data entry procedures During Ongoing supervision of implementation Feedback to implementers Refresher training After Review of COSF records Data analyses for validity checks Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 36

ECO City, Kansas Examining Policies and Procedures 37

Section B: Locating and Examining District APR Data

ECO City, Kansas Examining District APR Data 39

Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports 40

Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports 41

Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports 42

Section C: District Progress and Slippage Report 43

ECO City, Kansas Examining Addendum Reports 44

Section D: Data Verification Data Verification occurs each August 1 st – 31 st 45

ECO City, Kansas Examining Data Verification Records 46

Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS 47

Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS 48

Section E: Parameterized Data Report 49

Section E: No Permanent Exit 50

Section E: Permanent Exit Report 51

Section E: Summary Statement Report 52

Section E: ECO Report 53

ECO City, Kansas Examining Child Level Data 54

Online Resources 55

What the data look like: Nationally 56

Part C and Preschool Average Percentage of Children in Each Category Outcome 1: Social/Emotional Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 57

Part C and Preschool Average Percentage of Children in Each Category Outcome 2: Knowledge/Skills Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 58

59 Part C and Preschool Average Percentage of Children in Each Category Outcome 3: Getting Needs Met Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

60

Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 61

Keeping our eye on the prize: High quality services for children and families that will lead to good outcomes. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010) 62

Questions? 63

References Hebbeler, K., Kahn, L., Taylor, C. & Bailey, A. (2011). Data Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Data. Presented at the Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference, New Orleans, LA. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010, March). Measuring Child Outcomes, Presentation for Delaware; ECO Center & NECTAC. Retrieved 10/3/11 from: %20training%20slides%20for%20web% ppt %20training%20slides%20for%20web% ppt 64