1. ECO Suggestions on Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, ECO
Lynne Kahn, ECO/NECTAC
August 13, 2009 1

2. Take-home points for today
The “change” in the measurement table involves 2 new calculations from data already being reported
The change reduces the possible number of targets for these Indicators.
The calculation described in the Indicator Measurement Table can be done by an ECO calculator.
The “summary statements” provide data describing program effectiveness.

3. Timeline
February 2007 – states report data on indicators C3 and B7 for the first time
February 2010 – states are to set targets for these indicators

4. C3 and B7: Three Child Outcomes
Children have positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
Children acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy])
Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

5. Reporting Categories (Measures) for C3 and B7
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

6. The Problem Data reported includes
5 progress categories
For each of 3 outcomes
Total of 15 numbers reported each year
OSEP heard: Too many targets for one Indicator
OSEP asked ECO for a recommendation

7. The Solution “Summary Statements”
(a way to reduce the data so states did not have to set 15 targets for the indicator)

8. Broad input to develop the Summary Statements
ECO presented options to states and ECO work groups via conference calls
Posted on the ECO web site for comments
OSEP put the summary statements out for public comment
Comments came in that were thoughtful, but not necessarily consistent with one another

9. Paper documenting the process and alternatives considered on the ECO website
Setting Targets for Child Outcomes

10. The concepts are easier than the words or the formulas
Summary Statement 1: How many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program?
Summary Statement 2: How many children were functioning like same aged peers when they left the program?

12. The “change” to the Measurement Table= The 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.

13. Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in category (d) divided by [# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (a) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (b) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d)] times 100.

14. _________________________
Summary Statement 1
c + d
_________________________
a+ b + c + d
X 100

15. Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d) plus [# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (e) divided by the total # of infants and toddlers reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.

16. _____________________________
Summary Statement 2
d + e
_____________________________
a+ b + c + d + e
X 100

17. A shortcut to the calculations
Summary Statements Calculator -April 14, 2009

18. Example of State Indicator Data for 2008-2009
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):
Number of children
% of children
a. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning 40 4
b. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
150 15
c. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach
270 27
d. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same- aged peers
300 30
e. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
240 24
Total
N=1000
100%

19. SS1-What are we calculating??
760 (a, b, c, and d) or 76% of the children entered or exited the program functioning below age expectations
Prog cat # % a 40 4 b
150 15 c
270 27 d
300 30 e
240 24
240 (e) or 24% of the children entered and exited functioning at age expectations

20. SS1 (continued)
570 (c and d) of the 760 (a, b, c, and d) changed their growth trajectories (made greater than expected progress)
Prog cat # % a 40 4 b
150 15 c
270 27 d
300 30 e
240 24
= 570
760
= 75%

21. SS2-What are we calculating??
30% of the children reached age expectations by exit and 24% of the children entered and exited at age expectations
Prog cat # % a 40 4 b
150 15 c
270 27 d
300 30 e
240 24
= 540
1000
= 54%

22. Summary Statement 1 is one type of evidence of program effectiveness
Required Summary Statement 1:
Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program= 75%
 75% of the children who were below age expectations made greater than expected gains in their social relationships, made substantial increases in their rates of growth. i.e. changed their growth trajectories

23. Summary Statement 2 is another type of evidence of program effectiveness
Required Summary Statement 2:
The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A when they exited the program= 54%
54% of the children were functioning like same age peers in their social relationships when they exited the program.

24. Questions and comments?

25. More Information re Target Setting
Conference calls,
Individualized TA
Resources at
The-ECO-Center.org

26. What else can we say?
96% of children participating in Part C made progress in their social relationships while they were enrolled.
The 4% of children who did not make progress included children with the most severe disabilities and/or degenerative conditions. Can you describe them?

27. 24% of the children participating in Part C were functioning at age expectations at entry and at exit in their social relationships.
Can you describe them?