1. Supporting States in Building a Child Outcomes Measurement System
Lynne Kahn
Kathy Hebbeler
The Early Childhood Outcomes Center
OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting, July 2011

2. Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Two Frameworks
Child Outcomes Measurement System
Family Experiences and Outcomes Measurement System
Going talk specifically about the child framework but the background information applies to both
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3. Child Outcomes Measurement System
The set of components a state needs to have in place to make full use of child outcomes data.
NOT just a data system or a data collection method.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

4. Purpose of the Framework
Provide a common language for ECO and other TA providers to use in discussing COMSs with states.
Provide a organizing structure of categorizing resources and state examples related to implementation of a COMS.
Serve as the organizing structure for the state self assessment
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

5. Framework and Self-Assessment
Set of components and quality indicators
Provides the structure for the self-assessment
Self-assessment
Scale that provides criteria for levels of implementation within each quality indicator
Rating assigned based on level of implementation within each indicator
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

6. Data Collection and Transmission Cross-system Coordination
Quality Indicators
Components
Elements
Purpose
State has articulated purpose(s) of COMS.
Data Collection and Transmission
2. Data collection procedures are carried out efficiently and effectively.
3. Providers, supervisors, and others involved in data collection have the required knowledge, skills, and commitment.
4. State's method for entering, transmitting, and storing data is effective and efficient.
Analysis
5. State identifies accountability and program improvement questions related to child outcomes.
6. Local programs identify accountability and program improvement questions related to child outcomes.
7. State agency analyzes data in a timely manner.
8. Local programs analyze data in a timely manner.
9. State agency ensures completeness and accuracy of data.
Reporting
10. State agency interprets, reports, and communicates information related to child outcomes.
11. Local programs interpret, report, and communicate information related to child outcomes.
Using Data
12. State agency makes regular use of information on child outcomes to improve programs.
13. Local programs makes regular use of information on child outcomes to improve programs.
Evaluation
14. State evaluates its COMS regularly.
Cross-system Coordination
15. Part C and 619 coordinate child outcomes measurement.
16. Child outcomes measurement is integrated across early childhood (EC) programs statewide.
17. Child outcomes measurement is aligned with state’s early learning guidelines/standards.
18. State has a longitudinal data system to link child outcomes data from EC program participation to K–12 data.
Purpose
Data Collection and Transmission
Analysis
Reporting
Using Data
Evaluation
Cross-System Coordination
a. State has…
b. State has…
c. State agency..
d. Representative..
e. State agency…
f. State ……
g. State provides…
h. State has..
There is a logical developmental sequence within the indicators. If a state was starting from scratching, it would start with purpose, identify a method, identify some questions. Of course, a state could skip over purpose entirely and go straight to approach.
Most of the states with regard to building their Part C and Preschool Part B systems are focusing on the analysis sections. Some still trying to address some data quality issues. Some that are a little farther along are starting to build local capacity or trying to use the data at a state level. Some are not thinking about local capacity.
Lynne and I presented over the summer on the self assessment to the EC 2010 Conference. Audience was a roomful of state agency folks interested in building a state EC data system. It was very clear from the feedback that this is not a roadamap. It doesn’t say “start here” or “do this first”. We could adapt it but we would need to seek additional funding because the IDEA state agencies are already far into their journey and it is sufficiently structured for them.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

7. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

8. Purpose of the Self Assessment
Provide guidance to states on what constitutes a high quality child outcomes measurement system.
Assist states in setting priorities for improving their COMS
Provide information to assist states in advocating for resources for systems development
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

9. Early Childhood Outcomes Center
Each QI has multiple elements.
Evidence for the extent of implementation for each element is provided.
Each element is rated as
NY = Not Yet or Don’t know
IP = In Process, or
IF = Fully Implemented
The QI is given a rating based on the ratings of the elements.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

10. Back-up for Each Element
Live link from the element
Describes the element
Describes what “fully implemented looks like”
Provides examples of what “In process” might look like
Provides examples of how states are addressing the element
Provides additional resources related to the element
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

11. The Scale for the Quality Indicators
Implementation of Elements
Quality Indicator Score
All elements are fully implemented 7
Nearly all elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process 6
Most of the elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process. 5
At least one element is fully implemented and the rest are in process 4
All of the elements are in process 3
Some of the elements are in process 2
None of the elements are yet in process 1
Early Childhood Outcomes Center

12. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

13. Early Childhood Outcomes Center
For more information
For updates to the framework and the self-assessment and resources to support the quality indicators:
Early Childhood Outcomes Center