1. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data August, 2011 Kathy Hebbeler and Lynne Kahn ECO at SRI International and ECO at UNC

2. What we will cover Quick review of the reporting requirement and state approaches Share the national data Describe how the national data were computed Discuss the quality of the national data Discuss the meaning of the numbers 2 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3. OSEP Reporting Requirements: Child Outcomes Positive social emotional skills (including positive social relationships) Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication [and early literacy]) Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 3 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

4. OSEP 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 4Early Childhood Outcomes Center 3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers

6. The Summary Statements 1.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 3 years of age or exited the program. 2.The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program. 6 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

7. State Approaches to Outcomes Data Approach Part C (56 states/jurisdictions) Preschool (59 states/jurisdictions) COS 7 pt. scale41/56 (73%)37/59 (63%) One tool statewide7/56 (13%)9/59 (15%) Publishers’ online analysis 3/56 (5%)6/59 (10%) Other5/56 (9%)7/59 (12%)

8. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 8 Note: Based on 29 States with highest quality data

9. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 9 Note: Based on 29 States with highest quality data

10. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 10 Note: Based on 33 States with highest quality data

11. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 11 Note : Based on 33 States with highest quality data

12. Criteria for States with Quality Data 1.Low percentage of missing data 2.No odd patterns in “a” or “e” categories 3.Did not use questionable data collection methods 12Early Childhood Outcomes Center

13. Calculating Missing Data for Part C Proxy for missing data = Number with data for C3/ Exiting Data (618) 13Early Childhood Outcomes Center Do not expect this number to be 100%..but we don’t expect it to be 10% either

14. Part C: Percent of Exiters included in Outcomes Data 08-09 <10% = 10* 10- 20% = 4 20- 30% = 8 30- 40% = 11 40- 50% = 8 50- 60% = 8 60- 70% = 4 70- 80% = 2 >80% = 1 09-10 <10% = 5* 10- 20% = 4 20- 30% = 6 30- 40% = 8 40- 50% = 5 50- 60% = 11 60- 70% = 9 70- 80% = 1 >80% = 0 *3 states are sampling for Part C. Excluded states with <28%.

15. Calculating Missing Data for 619 Proxy for missing data = Number with data for B7/ Child count 15 Do not expect this number to be 100%..but we don’t expect it to be 10% either

16. Percent of Child Count included in Outcomes Data for ECSE 08-09 <10= 11* 10- 20%= 15 20- 30%= 12 30- 40%= 12 40-50% =1 >50% = 2 09-10 <10= 6* 10- 20%= 11 20- 30%= 12 30- 40%= 16 40-50% =4 >50%= 0 *4 States are sampling for 619 Excluded states with <12% of child count

17. Problem with Missing Data We don’t know how well the data the state has represent the entire state. If the data are representative, the percentages for the a to e Progress Categories and the Summary Statements won’t change as data are added on more children. 17 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

18. 18 Exclusion criteria: a<10% in any outcomes e<65% in any outcomes

19. Can we trust these data? 19Early Childhood Outcomes Center

20. Pattern checking for validity Checking across years – How do the 2009-10 compare to the data for 2008-09? Checking across methods – How do the data for all states compare to states with highest quality data? 20 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

21. Part C, Outcome A: Social Relationships

22. Part C, Outcome B: Knowledge and Skills

23. Part C, Outcome C: Meets Needs

24. Part B Preschool: Social Relationships

25. Part B Preschool: Knowledge and Skills

26. Part B Preschool: Meets Needs

27. Part C

29. What to these data tell us? Nationally, a high proportion of children who receive Part C and ECSE services are showing greater than expected progress Nationally, many (over half) are exiting the program functioning like same age peers in at least one of the outcomes. 29Early Childhood Outcomes Center

30. Should your state data look like the national data? Probably not More important that each state continue to focus on the quality of its own data – Getting outcomes data on all children who exit – Working with programs whose data look unusual to address possible data quality issues 30 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

31. Supporting States in Building a Child Outcomes Measurement System

32. Two Frameworks Child Outcomes Measurement System Family Experiences and Outcomes Measurement System 32Early Childhood Outcomes Center

33. 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. 33Early Childhood Outcomes Center

34. 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 34 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

35. Framework and Self-Assessment F RAMEWORK – Set of components and quality indicators – Provides the structure for the self- assessment S ELF - ASSESSMENT – Scale that provides criteria for levels of implementation within each quality indicator – Rating assigned based on level of implementation within each indicator 35 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

36. Process for Framework Development Built off what we had learned from ECO work with states Literature review Repeated discussion and review internally and with 7 Partner States 36 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

37. Framework Partner States StatePart C619 CaliforniaX ColoradoXX DelawareXX MaineXX MinnesotaXX New YorkX OhioXX 37 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

38. 38

39. Quality Indicator Provides additional detail as to what constitutes quality implementation of the component. 18 quality indicators across the 7 components 39Early Childhood Outcomes Center

40. 40Early Childhood Outcomes Center Purpose Data Collection and Transmission Analysis Reporting Using Data Evaluation Cross-System Coordination Components Quality Indicators Purpose 1.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. Elements a. State has… b. State has… c. State agency.. d. Representative.. e. State agency… f. State …… g. State provides… h. State has..

41. Early Childhood Outcomes Center41

42. Purpose of the Self Assessment Assist states in setting priorities for improving their COMS Provide information to assist states in advocating for resources for systems development 42 Provide guidance to states on what constitutes a high quality child outcomes measurement system. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

43. 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. 43 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

44. 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 44 Early Childhood Outcomes Center Back-up for Each Element

45. Early Childhood Outcomes Center45 The Scale for the Quality Indicators Implementation of Elements Quality Indicator Score All elements are fully implemented7 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 process3 Some of the elements are in process2 None of the elements are yet in process1

46. 46 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

47. Working with the Self Assessment 47 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

48. Possible Process 1.State identifies the highest priority QI(s). 2.Stakeholders convened – Priority QIs reviewed and rated – Plan developed to address elements not yet fully implemented. – Progress reviewed with stakeholders at regular intervals. 3.State identifies next set of QI(s), etc. 48Early Childhood Outcomes Center

49. Additional information For information on improving data quality and using data for program improvement www.the-eco-center.org 49Early Childhood Outcomes Center Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference, September 18-21, 2011 in New Orleans, LA