Critical Markers of High Quality Child Outcomes Data ECO Advisory Board March, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Data, Now What? Skills for Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Advertisements

Building a national system to measure child and family outcomes from early intervention Early Childhood Outcomes Center International Society on Early.
Indicator 7 Child Outcomes MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA June
Does anyone have concerns about the child’s functioning with regard to the outcome area? D OES THE CHILD EVER FUNCTION IN WAYS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED.
Data Analysis for Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data 1.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
Update on Child Outcomes for Early Childhood Special Education Lynne Kahn ECO at UNC The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center The National Association.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data.
Early Childhood Outcomes ECO Institute Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Robin Rooney ECO at FPG Prepared for the Office of Early Learning and School Readiness.
State Activities in Measuring Child Outcomes Lynne Kahn, Donna Spiker, Melissa Raspa, & Kathleen Hebbeler ECO Center Presented at: International Society.
1 Measuring Child Outcomes: State of the Nation. 2 Learning objective: To gain new information about the national picture regarding measuring child outcomes.
Highs and Lows on the Road to High Quality Data American Evaluation Association Anaheim, CA November, 2011 Kathy Hebbeler and Lynne Kahn ECO at SRI International.
CHILD OUTCOMES BASELINE AND TARGETS FOR INDICATOR 7 ON THE STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN State Advisory Panel for Exceptional Children November 12, 2009 January.
The Results are In! Child Outcomes for OSEP EI and ECSE Programs Donna Spiker Early Childhood Outcomes Center at SRI International October 13, 2011 (CCSSO-SCASS.
Update on Part C Child Outcomes Lynne Kahn ECO at UNC The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center June 2011 Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International.
The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data Kathy Hebbeler Early Childhood Outcomes Center at SRI International August, 2011.
Presented at Division for Early Childhood National Harbor, Maryland November, Child Outcomes: What We Are Learning from National, State, and Local.
Using data for program improvement Early Childhood Outcomes Center1.
Updates on APR Reporting for Early Childhood Outcomes (Indicators C-3 and B-7) Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3, 2010 San.
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Using the Child Outcomes Summary Form February 2007.
1 Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4) Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports Christina.
The Current Status of States' Early Childhood Outcome Measurement Systems Kathy Hebbeler, SRI International Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst October 17,
Partnering with Local Programs to Interpret and Use Outcomes Data Delaware’s Part B 619 Program September 20, 2011 Verna Thompson & Tony Ruggiero Delaware.
Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn, ECO at FPG Christina Kasprzak, ECO at FPG Cornelia Taylor, ECO at SRI Lauren Barton, ECO at SRI National Picture.
SPP Indicators B-7 and B-8: Overview and Results to Date for the Florida Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities PreK Coordinators Meeting.
Preparing the Next Generation of Professionals to Use Child Outcomes Data to Improve Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Lynne Kahn Kathy.
UNDERSTANDING THE THREE CHILD OUTCOMES 1 Maryland State Department of Education - Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services.
Child Outcomes: Understanding the Requirements in order to Set Targets Presentation to the Virginia Interagency Coordination Council Infant &
Module 5 Understanding the Age-Expected Child Development, Developmental Trajectories and Progress Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires.
1 Quality Assurance: The COS Ratings and the OSEP Reporting Categories Presented by The Early Childhood Outcomes Center Revised January 2013.
1 Measuring Child Outcomes: State of the Nation. 2 Learning objective: To gain new information about the national picture regarding measuring child outcomes.
PREVIEW: STATE CHILD OUTCOMES DATA QUALITY PROFILES National Webinar February 2014.
Cornelia Taylor, ECO at SRI Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI National Picture –Child Outcomes for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education October,
2012 OSEP Leadership Conference Leading Together to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Child Outcomes for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education:
Using COS Data to Inform Program Improvement at All Levels Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires the world to discover, love and nurture.
National Picture – Child Outcomes for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Kathleen Hebbeler Abby Winer Cornelia Taylor August 26, 2014.
Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement Kansas Division for Early Childhood Annual Conference Feb. 23rd 2012.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Orientation to Measuring Child and Family Outcomes for New People Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn, ECO at FPG/UNC.
Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement TASN – KITS Fall 2012 Webinar August 31 st, 2012 Tiffany Smith Phoebe.
Early Childhood Transition Part C Indicator C-8 & Part B Indicator B-12 Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports.
Summary Statements. The problem... Progress data included –5 progress categories –For each of 3 outcomes –Total of 15 numbers reported each year Too many.
What the data can tell us: Evidence, Inference, Action! 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes.
Parent and National TA Perspectives on EC Outcomes Connie Hawkins, Region 2 PTAC Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn ECO at FPG and NECTAC.
Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi: Implications for OSEP Reporting.
Measuring EC Outcomes DEC Conference Presentation 2010 Cornelia Taylor, ECO Christina Kasprzak, ECO/NECTAC Lisa Backer, MN DOE 1.
Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI Lynne Kahn, NECTAC and ECO at FPG
EIA: Using data for program improvement
Incorporating Early Childhood into Longitudinal Data Systems:
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International AUCD Meeting Washington, DC
Review of Summary Statements for Target Setting on Indicators C3 and B7 Lynne Kahn and Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC June 9,
Integrating Outcomes Learning Community Call February 8, 2012
Update on the Online Conversion Process for AEPSi:
Christina Kasprzak, ECTA/ECO/DaSy September 16, 2013
Update on the Online Conversion Process for CC.net and GOLD:
Webinar for the Massachusetts ICC Retreat October 3, 2012
Lynne Kahn Kathy Hebbeler The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center
The Basics of Quality Data and Target Setting
History of work between ODE and ECO
ECO Suggestions on Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, ECO
Gathering Input for the Summary Statements
ECO Suggestions on Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, ECO
Review of Summary Statements for Target Setting on Indicators C3 and B7 Lynne Kahn and Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC June 9,
Measuring Part C and Early Childhood Special Education Child Outcomes
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009
Using the Child and Family Outcomes Analysis Tools
Presentation transcript:

Critical Markers of High Quality Child Outcomes Data ECO Advisory Board March, 2012

Topics Why identify critical markers of high quality data? Anticipated use 3 areas of focus Draft critical markers Where these might be discussed in the APR Reactions? 2 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Looking for… Proposed markers that suggest a state’s EC outcomes systems may produce high quality data Use markers to: - systematically track over time - track internally (within states) - to produce a national picture 3 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Anticipated Use Tracking state progress (based on APR info) Compare data from each state to a series of critical markers for summaries –X % of states met standard on each marker nationally –X% of states met standard on 7 out of 10 markers NOT a state by state report card Share detailed info with each state, upon request 4 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3 Areas Completeness of data 5Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Completeness of data Missing data concepts –Are whole forms missing? (Have data from all kids expect to have data from) –Are the forms that you have complete? 6 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3 Areas Completeness of data Accuracy of data 7 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Accuracy of Data Do the data reflect the “true” performance of children in the program –Unknowable, so…. Are the patterns in data what you would expect to see if the data were accurate? Do they make sense? Or, are there red flags that raise more questions? 8 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3 Areas Completeness of data Accuracy of data State efforts related to tracking quality of data 9 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Criteria for Selection of Markers Important –necessary for or indicative of high quality data Accessible to ECO –Information to determine presence or absence of marker is available 10 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Draft Markers: Completeness State calculates and publicly reports number of children missing outcomes data Percent of missing outcomes data is less than 5%. –Is this reasonable? Percent of missing data by proxy calculation is less than. –40% of exiters for Part C –20% of child count for Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Part C percent of exiters Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Draft Markers: Accuracy/Patterning State % in a is not overly high (GT 5%) State % in b is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in c is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in d is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in e is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 65%) 13Early Childhood OutcGTomes Center

Knowledge and Skills Part B 619 proportion of children that make no progress (progress category a) 14Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Knowledge and Skills Part B 619 proportion of children who improved functioning but not sufficiently to move nearer to functioning comparable to same age peers (progress category b) 15Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Knowledge and Skills Part B 619 proportion of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same age peers but did not reach it (progress category c) 16Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Knowledge and Skills Part B 619 proportion of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same aged peers (progress category d) 17Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Knowledge and Skills Part B 619 proportion of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same aged peers (progress category e) 18Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Percent of states meeting the Critical Markers for Early Childhood Outcomes Center Accuracy of data Completeness of data Both Part C Part B

Draft Markers: State Quality Review of Data 20 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

21 Early Childhood Outcomes Center Completeness/ Missing Data Accuracy/ Patterns Location in Suggested APR Template

22 Early Childhood Outcomes Center State Quality Review of Data Location in Suggested APR Template

Questions for you Are these markers important? –Related to high quality data –Things you value and might track or are already tracking them? –Would tracking them help you improve your system? Is there anything else you can think of as a good marker of high quality data 23 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Summary – Draft Critical Markers State calculates and publicly reports number of children missing outcomes data Percent of missing outcomes data is less than 5% Percent of missing data by proxy calculation is less than X State % in a is not overly high (GT 5%) State % in b is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in c is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in d is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 50%) State % in e is not overly low (LT 5%) or high (GT 65%) State conducts data quality checks State’s own analyses provide evidence of high quality data 24

Comments, Reactions, Questions? 25