Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010

Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010
Analyzing and Interpreting Child Outcomes Data

Objective for the day To share with you ideas and resources for use in training and TA that will help districts to analyze and use COSF data 2

Agenda Follow up discussion about assessment tools
Looking at data—generally; national; state; regional Follow up discussion about assessment tools Communicating data results Public reporting requirements Framework for a quality outcomes system

Recap from March Assessment (more debrief on this after lunch)
no assessment created for this outcomes process best practices on assessment = multiple data sources types of assessment including pros and cons benefits of limiting assessments for COSF selecting tools for COSF process activity – reviewing assessment tools and identifying strengths, weaknesses, how it fits with COSF process

Recap from March Promoting Data Quality – ECO Training Materials and Activities COSF refresher training quality review of COSF team discussion involving families in outcomes process written child example reviewing a COSF for quality

Why do a good job with COSF data?
It’s hard to change attitudes! What motivates people? Altruistic? Fear? Logic? Money?

Altruistic: Because you believe child and family outcomes are why you do your job! Fear: Because you can look bad! (to the state; to the public via public reporting) Logic: Because a program should be accountable for the results of their services! Money: Because OMB is using the data to make decisions– federal dollars are at stake!

Today’s focus on ‘looking at data’ will give you more tools and resources for changing attitudes!

Looking at Data 9

Continuous Program Improvement
Reflect Are we where we want to be? Check (Collect and analyze data) Plan (vision) Program characteristics Child and family outcomes Implement 10

Using data for program improvement = EIA
Evidence Inference Action 11

Evidence Evidence refers to the numbers, such as
“45% of children in category b” The numbers are not debatable 12

Inference How do you interpret the #s?
What can you conclude from the #s? Does evidence mean good news? Bad news? News we can’t interpret? To reach an inference, sometimes we analyze data in other ways (ask for more evidence) 13

Inference Inference is debatable -- even reasonable people can reach different conclusions Stakeholders can help with putting meaning on the numbers Early on, the inference may be more a question of the quality of the data 14

Action Given the inference from the numbers, what should be done?
Recommendations or action steps Action can be debatable – and often is Another role for stakeholders Again, early on the action might have to do with improving the quality of the data 15

Promoting quality data through data analysis
16 16

Promoting quality data through data analysis
Examine the data for inconsistencies If/when you find something strange, look for other data that might help explain it. Is the variation caused by something other than bad data? 17 17

The validity of your data is questionable if…
The overall pattern in the data looks “strange’: Compared to what you expect Compared to other data Compared to similar states/regions/school districts 18 18

Let’s look at some data …
19 19

Remember: Part C &619 Child Outcomes (see cheat sheet)
1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); 2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy]); and 3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 2004-early 2005: ECO generates discussion and gathers input on child and family outcomes. Stakeholders came up with these three child outcomes. OSEP decides to require these for EI and preschool programs to report.

Remember: COSF 7-point scale
7-Completely- Age appropriate functioning in all or almost all everyday situations; no concerns 6- Age appropriate functioning, some significant concerns 5-Somewhat- Age appropriate functioning some of the time and/or in some settings and situations 4- Occasional age-appropriate functioning across settings and situations; more functioning is not age-appropriate than age appropriate. 3-Nearly- Not yet age appropriate functioning; immediate foundational skills most or all of the time 2- Occasional use of immediate foundational skills 1-Not yet- Not yet age appropriate functioning or immediate foundational skills 2004-early 2005: ECO generates discussion and gathers input on child and family outcomes. Stakeholders came up with these three child outcomes. OSEP decides to require these for EI and preschool programs to report.

COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (fake data)
Statewide # Statewide% 1 300 15% 2 421 21% 3 516 25% 4 604 29% 5 101 5% 6 109 7 0% 22 22

Frequency on Outcome 1 – Statewide Entry Data
23

Group 1 # Group 2 # Group 3 # Group 4 # 1 30 11 10 12 2 40 42 3 50 20 23 4 64 31 32 34 5 45 44 6 52 7 24 24

Group 1% Group 2 % Group 3 % Group 4 % 1 15 7 5 6 2 20 21 3 25 12 11 4 31 18 16 17 24 22 25 25

Comparison of two Groups

Average Entry Scores on Outcomes
Group Social-Emotional Knowledge and Skills Action to Meet Needs 1 4.5 4.6 4.7 2 5.3 5.2 3 4.9 4 6.4 5.9 6.6 5 4.3 6 3.8 2.9 3.9 Total 5.03 4.63 4.95

Outcome 3: Appropriate Action (fake data)
Entry Exit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total 9 26 15 14 27 19 83 21 39 28 12 108 71 86 48 232 63 136 18 23 56 99 Review Total 13 38 60 185 207 186 691 100 28

Remember: Reporting Categories
Percentage 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 3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers

Progress Data – Outcome 2: fake data
OSEP Categories Children e. Maintained Age Appro Trajectory 23% d. Changed Traj – Age Appro 15% c. Changed Traj – Closer to Age Appropriate 32% b. Same Trajectory -Progress 28% a. Flat Trajectory – No Prog. 2% 30 30

Progress Data – Outcome 2: fake data
OSEP Categories Group 1 (%) Group 2 (%) Group 3 e. Maintained Age Appro Trajectory 23 16 24 d. Changed Traj – Age Appro 15 13 c. Changed Traj – Closer to Age Appropriate 32 34 37 b. Same Trajectory -Progress 28 21 25 a. Flat Trajectory – No Prog. 2 6 1 31 31

OSEP Progress Categories for Outcome 1
Program a b c d e Row total Children’s Corner 1 3 8 14 Elite Care 6 2 17 Ms Mary’s 11 13 31 New Horizons 4 10 Oglethorpe Column total 15 18 40 89

Progress Categories OSEP 1
Program a b c d e Row percent totals Children’s Corner 33% 8% 20% 6% 16% Elite Care 46% 13% 11% 15% 19% Ms Mary’s 23% 61% 35% New Horizons 0% 27% Oglethorpe 25% Column percent totals 100%

a b c d e Progress Categories OSEP 1 Program 7% 21% 57% 100% 6% 35%
Row percent totals Children’s Corner 7% 21% 57% 100% Elite Care 6% 35% 12% Ms Mary’s 3% 10% 42% New Horizons 0% 40% 20% 30% Oglethorpe 18% 59% Column percent totals 15% 17% 45%

Final results Using the row percents we know that 35% of children in Ms Mary’s programs closed the gap in Outcome 1. As a reference, we can compare this to the 20% of children across all programs that closed the gap in Outcome 1. Why? Is this an important difference? To answer that question we would conduct additional analysis

Questions to ask Do the data make sense?
Am I surprised? Do I believe the data? Believe some of the data? All of the data? If the data are reasonable (or when they become reasonable), what might they tell us? Can’t use data for program improvement until you believe them. 36 36

Examining COSF data at one time point
One group - Frequency Distribution Tables Graphs Comparing Groups Averages

What we’ve looked at: Do outcomes vary by: Unit/District/Program?
Rating at Entry? Amount of movement on the scale? % in the various progress categories?

What else might you want to look at?
Do outcomes vary by child/family variables or by service variables, e.g. : Services received? Age at entry to service? Type of services received? Family outcomes? Education level of parent? 39 39

Activity 1: Reviewing sample data

Small Groups Break into small groups of ~5
Walk through the state example answering questions as you go Whole group: share highlights of your conversations

Application How could you use this type of data discussion in your training and TA? What experiences or resources do you have with discussing outcomes data in your training and TA?

Summary Statements

Origin of the Summary Statements
States reported on the OSEP Progress Categories for a few years States knew they would be asked to set targets Using the progress categories would require setting 15 targets…

Origin of the Summary Statements
ECO prepared papers with options Convened stakeholders Extensive discussion about pros and cons of various summary statements See Options and ECO Recommendations for Summary Statements for Target Setting on the ECO web site:

Summary Statements 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 6 years of age or exited the program. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. The APR reporting requires states to report how they are doing on specific indicators and also to set targets for improvement. OSEP decided (with ECO and state input) that setting targets on the 5 a-e categories across 3 outcomes (15 numbers total) was too complicated, especially given the interrelationship between the a-e categories (they add up to 100%, so if one goes up another goes down). So, the ECO Center worked with OSEP and states to determine what kinds of summary data states might set targets on. These are the 2 summary statements finally selected by OSEP for all programs to report on.

Summary Statements 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 exited the program. c + d___ a + b + c + d For each of the 3 outcome areas, states must report on children who substantially increased their rate of growth. The numerator includes ‘c’ the children who narrowed the gap and ‘d’ the children who closed the gap. Notice the denominator does not include the ‘e’ category which are the children who came in functioning at age level in that outcome area. Don’t forget, these outcome areas are measured and reported independently. So, a child may enter the program performing at age expectations in one or more of the areas.

Other Ways to Think about Summary Statement 1
How many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program? Percent 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 Statements 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 For each outcome area, a state must report on the percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program. The numerator includes ‘d’ the children who closed the gap and ‘e’ the children who entered the program at age expectation. Some have likened this summary statement to the ‘readiness or ready to learn’ concept.

Other Ways to Think about Summary Statement 2
How many children were functioning like same aged peers when they left the program? Percent of the children who were functioning at age expectations in this outcome area when they exited the program, including those who: started out behind and caught up and entered and exited at age level

The connection: COSF ratings OSEP categories Summary Statements

National and Texas Data

State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes
Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) 36 (61%) 619 Single assessment statewide 9 (15%) 619 Publishers’ online assessment systems 6 (10%) 619 Other approaches 7 (12%) 619 *one state preschool program still unknown According to the Annual Performance Reports submitted to OSEP in February 2010, most states were using the COSF. Some states have mandated that all local programs use the same tool for outcomes measurement. Some require everyone to use one assessment tool statewide e.g. the BDI, others the AEPS, etc. A few states are working with the publishers of assessment tools to develop electronic systems so that local providers enter data into the system and the computer generates a report (Creative Curriculum; AEPS; Highscope COR)

State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement – 619 Programs
Early Childhood Outcomes Center – August 2010 MP GU MH PW FM Legend: COSF Publishers’ on-line systems One tool statewide Other AS HI

National Progress Data Feb 2010
Looking at the data across outcomes – 619.

National Summary Statement Data

Texas 619 Progress Data Feb 2010
Looking at the data across outcomes – 619.

Texas 619 Summary Statement Data

Activity 2: Texas statewide and regional data

Small Group Instructions:
Review Texas Statewide data Review regional data (comparing to one another and to the state) Discuss: What surprises you about the data? What questions do the data raise? What additional data collection or analysis would you do to dig deeper? “Gallery Walk” - Record you small groups best ideas on sheet to be posted and shared with whole group

Application How could you use this type of activity in your training and TA? What experiences or resources do you have with discussing outcomes data in your training and TA?

Assessment Tools and COSF
62

Recap from March - Assessment
Assessment (more debrief on this after lunch) no assessment created for this outcomes process best practices on assessment = multiple data sources types of assessment including pros and cons benefits of limiting assessments for COSF selecting tools for COSF process activity – reviewing assessment tools and identifying strengths, weaknesses, how it fits with COSF process

Selecting and implementing good formal assessments as an essential component of good child outcomes measurement Assessment considerations in reporting child outcomes data a. No assessment developed for this purpose b. No ‘perfect’ assessment c. Formal assessment is one piece of information d. Formal assessment can provide consistency across teachers/providers, programs, state e. Formal assessment can ground teachers/providers in age expectations

DEC recommended practices on early childhood assessment
1. Professionals and families collaborate in planning and implementing assessment. Assessment is individualized and appropriate for the child and family. Assessment provides useful information for intervention. Professionals share information in respectful and useful ways. Professionals meet legal and procedural requirements and meet recommended practice guidelines.

Types of Assessment Norm-referenced instrument
Criterion-Referenced instrument Curriculum-based instrument Direct observation Progress monitoring Parent or professional report (and any combination of above)

PROS and CONS of Norm referenced instruments
Provides information on development in relation to others Already used for eligibility Diagnosis of developmental delay Standardized procedures CONS Does not inform intervention Information removed from context of child’s routines Usually not developed or validated with children w/ disabilities Does not meet many recommended practice standards May be difficult to administer or require specialized training.

PROS and CONS of Criterion Referenced instruments
Measures child’s performance of specific objectives Direct link between assessment and intervention Provides information on child’s strengths and emerging skills Helps teams plan and meet individual child’s needs Meets recommended assessment practice standards Measures child progress May be used to measure program effectiveness CONS Requires agreement on criteria and standards Criteria must be clear and appropriate Usually does not show performance compared to other children Does not have standard administration procedures May not move child toward important goals Scores may not reflect increasing proficiency toward outcomes

PROS and CONS of Curriculum-based instruments
Provides link between assessment and curriculum Expectations based upon the curriculum and instruction Can be used to plan intervention Measures child’s current status or curriculum Evaluates program effects Often team based Meets DEC and NAEYC recommended standards Represents picture of the child’s performance CONS May not have established reliability and validity May not have procedures for comparing child to a normal distribution Generally linked to a specific curriculum Sometimes comprised of milestones that may not be in order of importance

Benefits of limiting assessment tools used for COSF
Ensure use of quality assessments as foundation for COSF Increase the consistency across individuals and programs (ensure the quality of the data) Reduce Cost/Resources it takes to train and support many tools Other benefits?

What types of criteria to consider in the process of selecting tools for use with COSF
How well does it cover the 3 outcome areas? How functional is the information collected about the child? Does the instrument allow a child to show their skills and behaviors in natural settings and situations? Does the instrument incorporate observation, parent input, or other sources? Is the instrument limited to an ideal testing situation?

Successes? Challenges? Next steps?
How’s it going? Successes? Challenges? Next steps?

Activity 3: Reviewing data on assessments used with COSFs

Review data on assessments used with COSFs Discuss: What do the data say? What stands out for you? What might this data mean? What questions does it raise? What next steps might be taken? Share back with whole group

Application How could you use an activity like this in your training and TA? What experiences or resources do you have about assessment that you already use in your training and TA?

Communicating Effectively with the Media and Public about Child Outcomes Data
76

Being prepared……….. How will we talk about the child outcomes data with: The media State legislators State agency heads Families Early intervention and 619 providers State advisory councils Other key stakeholders in your state

Being prepared means……….
Thinking ahead about how to talk about the data. Writing out the specific messages you want to make (an internal ‘talking points’ memo). Developing a 1-2 page fact sheet that summarizes the findings and your messages. Using public dissemination opportunities to get out key messages that will educate the public about your programs, their benefits.

Being prepared means thinking about…
What audiences? What you want each audience to know about your program including any recent changes in eligibility, system, etc.)? What you want each audience to know about the data?

Being prepared means……….
Identifying key spokespersons. Being thoroughly familiar with your state’s data. Practicing your talking points with individuals who are not familiar with the program. 80

Crafting the messages: Set the context
Provide the context (Federal reporting). Use the ECO Center Q&A document** to explain: What are the child outcomes Why we are measuring and reporting outcomes The ultimate goal is 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, preschool or school programs, and in the community.

Crafting the messages: Summary Statement #1
Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in Outcome __, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3/6 years of age or exited the program. Share the numbers; describe them in simple ways: “Nearly two-thirds of the children made greater than expected progress while in the program.”

Crafting the messages: Summary Statement #2
The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome __ by the time they turned 3/6 years of age or exited the program. Share the numbers; describe them in simple ways: “About half of the children were functioning like same age peers when they left the program.”

Key issues in messaging the data….
How do we look ahead and become thoroughly prepared to present and explain the child outcomes data?

Anticipate Questions What are 3 questions that different audiences may ask you about the child outcomes data? Families Legislators Agency heads State or local councils/boards The media

Making the message understandable…..
How do you make the message easily understandable for the public? Use “Plain Speak” Don’t be repetitive Explain how your data relates to the average person in your state What are you saying about how the children are doing? Discuss in terms of what is important to all families

Describe the numbers in simple ways ….
“Nearly half the children showed made greater than expected progress while they were in the program.” “About two-thirds of the children were performing like same age peers when they left the program.” You can talk about more than the two Summary Statements.

Give YOUR interpretation about the numbers…..
“We see these data as good news….” “We are pleased that the data shows that children in these programs are making progress between the time they enter and leave these programs…” “Many children are catching up with peers in the same age group…”

Share other key messages to educate your audiences….
“These programs serve many different children….” “Some children have mild delays or problems in one area only. These are children who can ‘catch up’”. “Other children have more significant disabilities; some make substantial progress and others make less progress”.

Link messages to broader EC issues…
Point out how the program is helping get children ready for school. Note that there is lots of policy attention and research about the cost effectiveness of early learning programs.

Think ahead about messages that might work or not work….
What are some messages that have worked for you in the past? What are some messages that didn’t work so well, or were misinterpreted by the media or public or other key audiences?

If the data show possible problems….
Get out in front of the data, and note the problem areas: “We see large differences in the data in different regions………..” Then, offer interpretations and note that you are trying to understand such differences: “We are trying to understand these variations. They may have to do with differences in the children being served or in ways the data are being collected…..”

Preparing a response….. Find the main message you want to communicate
Translate the main message into a simple statement about the data Use quotes to explain the meaning of the data; give an interpretation Include quote by state official. Include quote by program or provider. Include quote(s) from parent(s).

End any messaging by returning to the big picture message…..
“The goal of these programs is for children to be active and successful participants now and in the future”.

Activity 4: Prepare to answer questions from different audiences

Identify 3 key questions that different audiences may ask about child outcomes data Choose one key question to focus on for creating a response. Discuss how you might use data to respond to the question. What are the messages you want to send? Share back with whole group

Application How could you use the messaging materials in your training and TA? What similar experiences or resources do you have that you already use in your training and TA?

Public Reporting 98

Public Reporting Requirements Timelines Expectations

Wrap Up Day 1 100

ECO Framework and Self Assessment
101

Purpose of the ECO Framework
Designed to identify key components that make up a quality outcomes measurement system. Designed to be used by state agencies to assess progress toward full implementation of a child outcomes measurement system.

Components measured Purpose Data collection and transmission Analysis
Reporting Using data Evaluation Cross-system coordination

Self Assessment Scale 1 = No or minimal implementation 3 = Some implementation 5 = Substantial implementation 7 = Full implementation (effective, efficient)

Activity 3: ECO Framework and Self Assessment

Break into 6 groups – each assigned a focus: Data collection and transmission Analysis Reporting AND Using data Discuss and complete the self assessment area assigned to your group. Share back with whole group How is Texas doing in this area? How are regions/districts doing in this area?

Application How could you use the framework and/or self assessment in your training and TA? What similar experiences or resources do you have that you already use in your training and TA?

Needs Assessment 108

Keeping our eye on the prize:
High quality services for children and families that will lead to good outcomes.

Find more resources at: http://www. the-eco-center-org

Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Christina Kasprzak Austin, Texas November 2010"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback