Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012

Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012
Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes: Using the Child Outcome Summary Form to Report Progress Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012 This power point can be used for training staff new to the COSF process or for an all staff refresher.

Agenda Overview of the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO)
4 Steps to Rating a Child on the ECOs Assessment Documenting the Basis for the Rating (DBRF) Using the Decision Tree to make a rating Completing the Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF) How Early Childhood Outcome Data is Used ECOS and the IFSP/IEP Kansas ECO Resources Questions - Evaluation This agenda was developed for a 3 hour workshop. Depending on your group’s level of experience with ECO and how much time is spent on activities, it could be shorter or longer in duration. All of the handouts for this training can be downloaded from the Group Training Tools and Materials link on the KITS ECO web page:

Overview of the Early Childhood Outcomes
This section is designed to provide some history and and an overview to ECO.

History Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 1993
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)2002 “While the program has met its goal relating to the number of children served, it has not collected information on how well the program is doing to improve the educational and developmental outcomes of preschool children/infants and toddlers served.” Key Points: Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) – required all federal programs to report data on results Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 2002– the Office of Management and Budget reviewed the findings of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (also called the PART) which is a rating tool used to evaluate all government programs. They found that results were not demonstrated. This meant that Part C Early Intervention programs and Part B Preschool programs did not have data to show the program effectiveness and results. We are in an age of accountability, which increasingly means looking at results, not just provision of services. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is under increasing pressure to produce outcome data on children participating in early intervention and early childhood special education programs. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

How Office of Special Education (OSEP) Responded to PART
Required states to submit outcome data in their State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) Funded the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center in October 2003 to gather input, conduct research, make recommendations, and assist states Key Points: There are 20 SPP/APR indicators for Part B and 14 for Part C. Indicators are divided into two groups – compliance and results indicators Compliance indicators have targets set by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP. And cannot cannot be less that 100%, except for Disproportionality indicators which have a target of 0%. For preschool, Indicator 12B/8C is the only compliance indicator: timely transition planning and implementation of IEP by 3rd birthday. In addition to sharing this compliance indicator with Part B, Part C also has compliance indicators for timely receipt of services (1C), meeting the 45 day timeline for evaluation and initial IFSP in place (7C), and timely correction of noncompliance (9C). Results indicators have targets set by the State with stakeholder input. Targets for results indicators must demonstrate a slope of improvement from State baseline data (maintenance is not enough). Results indicators measure improved implementation of IDEA Part B and Part C in areas demonstrated to improve child outcomes/results within each Monitoring Priority. The Early Childhood Outcomes are “results” indicators. Kansas collected baseline, set targets, and in 2011 state and local ECO data was included in APR reports to networks and districts. State performance plan is 6 year plan that began in 2007 KSDE district APR reports can be found at KDHE network APR reports can be found at Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes
Possible state approaches to collection of child data Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) About 70% of state Part C programs About 60% of state 619 programs Single assessment statewide Publisher's online assessment systems Other approaches Key Points: According to the Annual Performance Reports submitted to OSEP in February 2009, most states were using the COSF. Some states have mandated that all local programs use the same tool for outcomes measurement (BDI, 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 Child Outcomes Summary report and rating. In Kansas, we use the COSF, but also decided to develop our own database – the Outcome Web System (OWS) The OWS generates the required reports for OSEP and allows individual programs access to their own data. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

Goal of Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education
“… 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, in preschool or school programs, and in the community.” Key Points: ECO project brought together a large scale national stakeholder group in 2004, when outcome requirements were just being defined. Stakeholders included families, providers, teachers, local, state and federal administrators and researchers. The slide contains the goal they developed. based on a vision for what ALL families would want for their children. The 3 child outcomes were based on this overarching goal of early intervention and early childhood special education. ECO Center (2010a)

The Three Early Childhood Outcomes
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy*]) Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs *for 3-5 Key Points: We are all familiar with the three outcomes; these outcomes represent the outcomes we want children to have as a result of participation in our early childhood programs. Indicators are same for Part C and Part B, except for Outcome 2, which includes “early literacy” for ages 3-5 The are meant to reflect how a child functions across settings and situations—functionally meaningful actions-- and not where children score on standardized tests. The link takes you to a 9 minute video produced by Larry Edelman in 2011 called Child Outcomes Step By Step. You will need Quick Time to view the video online or download it to your computer. ECO Center video link:

Outcomes An outcome is neither the receipt of special education or early intervention services nor satisfaction with the services received An outcome is a benefit experienced as a result of services and supports received. ECO Center (2010a) Key Points: An “outcome” is defined by the ECO center as a benefit experienced as a result of services and supports received. Thus, an outcome is neither the receipt of special education or early intervention services nor satisfaction with the services received. An outcome is what happens as a result of services provided to children.

Outcome Characteristics
Not domains-based, not separating child development into discrete areas (communication, gross motor, etc.) Refers to behaviors that integrate skills across domains Can involve multiple domains Emphasize functionality - how the child is able to carry out meaningful behaviors in a meaningful context Key Points: Review the characteristics of outcomes Not domain specific – there is no communication, motor, or classroom specific outcome Rather developmental domains cut across all three outcomes; therefore it is probable that the same developmental area will impact all three outcomes We are not looking at whether a child has skills, but how a child uses the skills they have ECO Center (2010a) .

Children have Positive Social Relationships
Involves Relating with adults Relating with other children For older children, following rules related to groups or interacting with others Includes areas like: Attachment/separation/autonomy Expressing emotions and feelings Learning rules and expectations Social interactions and play Key Points: The first outcome states that children have positive social relationships. This includes relationships and social interactions with adults and other children and getting along in groups (for older children). Assessment and observation of this outcome often includes looking at: attachment/separation/autonomy, expressing emotions and feelings, learning rules and expectations, and social interactions and play. ECO center has provided specific examples/indicators for each outcome. These are listed on the slide as well as the COSF and the DBFR (tools we will be discussing shortly).

Children Acquire and Use Knowledge and Skills
Involves: Thinking Reasoning Remembering Problem solving Using symbols and language Understanding physical and social worlds Includes: Early concepts – symbols, pictures, numbers, classification, spatial relationships Imitation Object permanence Expressive language and communication Early literacy Key Points: Outcome 2 states that children acquire and use knowledge and skills. This involves thinking, reasoning, remembering, problem solving, using symbols and language and understanding physical and social worlds – such as science and social studies. Assessment and observation often include looking at early concepts, expressive language and communication and, for older children, early literacy and numeracy. ECO center has provided specific examples/indicators for each outcome. These are listed on the slide as well as the COSF and the DBRF.

Children Take Appropriate Action to Meet Their Needs
Involves: Taking care of basic needs Getting from place to place Using tools (e.g. fork, toothbrush, crayon) In older children, contributing to their own health and safety Included: Integrating motor skills to complete tasks Self-help skills (e.g. dressing, feeding, grooming, toileting, household responsibility) Acting on the world to get what one wants Key Points: Outcome 3 states that children take appropriate action to meet their needs. This includes basic self help and adaptive skills such as taking care of basic needs, getting from place to place, using tools and contributing to one’s own health and safety. Assessment and observation of these skills and behaviors might include integrating motor skills to complete tasks, demonstration of self-help skills, and acting in appropriate ways to get what one needs or wants. ECO center has provided specific examples/indicators for each outcome. These are listed on the slide as well as the COSF and the DBRF.

Outcomes Reflect Global Functioning
Each outcome is a snapshot of: The whole child Status of the child’s current functioning Functioning across settings and situations Rather than Isolated skills Split by domains Test scores Key Points: The three outcomes are broad. They are meant to give a snapshot of the whole child in his or her everyday life. The outcomes cross developmental domains in order to see how children integrate skills and behaviors in order to participate in their everyday activities. Assessment and observation of the outcomes requires asking more functional questions about the whole child—for example, For outcome 1, we might ask questions like -- How does the child show affection? And, how does the child interact with others? Regulate his or her emotions? Understand and follow rules? For outcome 2, we might ask questions like -- How does the child problem solve? How does the child show he or she understands concepts or words? Explore the environment, engage in early learning opportunities, show imagination and creativity in play? And for outcome 3, we might ask questions like -- How does the child indicate hunger? Fatigue? Meet his or her own needs related to bathing, dressing or toileting? Seek help when necessary to move from place to place? Use objects such as spoons, crayons, and switches as functional tools? For example, we may observe a child who uses 3-word phrases to engage another child in play during center time. This tells us about how he integrates language with social functioning. We want to know more than the number of words in the child’s vocabulary; we want to know how he puts words and actions together in meaningful, functional ways. Another example might be a child who can point to juice to indicate that she would like a drink. This tells us about how she integrates language with getting her needs met. We want to know more than just whether she can point. We want to know whether she can point to communicate a need. For further information about functional outcomes, refer to the handout titled, ‘What is a Functional Outcome?’ ECO Center (2010a)

Outcomes Jeopardy Biting $100 $100 $100 $200 $200 $200 $300 $300 $300
Pointing to the cabinet for cereal Reading the letter “S” on the Stop sign Washes hands before lunch Biting Plays by himself in the classroom Plays with rhyming words Building a castle from blocks with a friend Problems sleeping Sharing a cookie at lunchtime $100 $100 $100 $200 $200 $200 Refer the participants to their handout of this powerpoint for descriptions of the 3 outcomes Note: you must be in ‘slide show’ mode for this to work. You should click on each box and the ‘door’ slides away. ” Some skills or behaviors may fit with more than one outcome. Answer key: (1) 100—Outcome 3; (2)100—Outcome 2; (3) 100—Outcome 3. (1) 200—Outcome 1, 2 or 3, depending upon how biting is affecting this child’s functioning (Outcome 1 if no one will play because he/she bites, Outcome 2 if he or she is always in time out for biting and misses the learning activities, Outcome 3 if it’s associated with feeding issues); (2) 200—Outcome 1; (3)200—Outcome 2. (1) 300—Outcome 1 and 2 (playing with a friend=Outcome 1 and representational play=Outcome 2); (2) 300—Outcome 1, 2 or 3, depending upon how lack of sleep affects this child’s functioning (Outcome 1 if he/she is too sleepy to interact with others, Outcome 2 if he/she is too sleepy to participate in learning activities, Outcome 3 if he or she is too sleepy to get his or her needs met, (3) 300—Outcome 1 and 3 (sharing=Outcome 1 and participating in lunch=Outcome 3). $300 $300 $300 Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

Functional Behaviors and Skills
What the child usually does How the child uses skills to accomplish a task Actual performance across settings and situations Key Points: Think about isolated behaviors and what observing them tells you about the child. For example, suppose an assessment instrument asks you to observe whether or not a child can point:  If you know that a child can point, do you know that the child can communicate her wants and needs?  If you know that a child can’t point, do you know that the she can’t communicate his wants and needs?  How does knowing about pointing help you understand how the child takes action to meet needs? Ratings on the seven-point scale for each outcome are a snapshot of:  The whole child  Status of the child’s current functioning  Functioning across settings and situations Ratings are based on the child’s functioning:  What the child does across settings and situations  Compared with what is expected given the child’s age For the purpose of this rating process, we are NOT assessing the child’s capacity to function under unusual or ideal circumstances ECO Center (2010a)

Thinking Functionally
Isolated skill Knows how to imitate a gesture when prompted by others Uses finger in pointing motion Uses 2-word utterances Functional skill Watches what a peer says or does and incorporates it into his/her own play Points to indicate needs or wants Engages in back and forth verbal exchanges with caregivers using 2-word utterances Key Points: Functional skills answer the “so what” question. It answers why the child does what he/she does—it supplies the purpose of the action or skill. Refer to handout and exercise: What are Functional Skills and Behaviors ECO Center (2010a)

Keeping our eyes on the prize: High quality services for children and families that will lead to good outcomes. Key Point: The bottom line -- we will be collecting and using outcomes data to improve services for children and families in our programs. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010a)

Timelines

Timelines All children entering Part C or B (3-5) services must have a COSF rating completed (on all 3 outcomes) if they can be in Part C or B for at least 6 months. All children who have been in Part C or B for 6 months or longer and permanently exit Kansas Part C or B services must have a COSF exit rating (on all 3 outcomes) completed. Key Points: A COSF rating always includes a rating on all three outcomes This means 6 months cumulative time in the state’s Part C or B program, not just 6 months in a local program. This is critical because we are measuring growth over the course of Part C and B services, so we want to capture the child’s functional performance on all 3 outcomes within 30 days of when service began or ended. This means if a child enters services and the family says they will be moving to a neighboring town in state, the child will in this case continue to receive services and team is required to complete an initial COSF rating. On the same note, if a child moves into your network or district and there is not 6 months before the child’s permanent exit (for example a 4 year-old enters district preschool program in Feb. and will go to Kindergarten in the fall) but that child has been receiving services in another district, the district the child moved to would, when the child permanently exits, be required to do an exit COSF rating even if the child was not in their specific district for 6 months. We also recommend that if there is any doubt that a child will be in services for 6 month, it is in the team’s best interest to complete a COSF rating just in case the child stays in services longer than expected. For example, if at the time the child is found eligible, the family tells you they are planning to move out of state in 4 months. we would recommend doing an entry COSF rating on the off chance the family’s life plans change and the child continues in services. This information can be found in the OWS manual KSDE (2011)

Timelines Permanent Exit: A exit COSF is required when a child is:
Leaving Part C at the age of 3 Leaving Part B preschool services to go to kindergarten Turning 6 years old (for a child still in Part B preschool services) No longer eligible for services under IDEA Moving out of Kansas Withdrawn from services by their parent/guardian Deceased. Key Points: An exit COSF is required when a child has been in Part C or B services for at least 6 months and permanently exits the program. Review the types of exit that are considered permanent exit. This information can be found in the OWS manual KSDE (2011)

Timelines COSF ratings must be completed within 30 calendar days of:
the first day of Part C the last day of Part C the first day of Part B the last day of Part B COSF information cannot be entered into the OWS until after the first date of Part C or B service ( program entry) or the last date Part C or B service (permanent exit). Key Points: Remember we are trying to capture the child’s functioning at the time services begin and at the time they permanently exit services. According to the OWS manual: “The student record must be entered into the OWS by July 31st for children 6 years old and for children 3 years old, as soon as possible, but no later than 90 days past the child’s third birthday OR by July 31st – whichever occurs first.” The OWS system will not let you enter the COSF rating before the beginning or ending date of services. However the ratings themselves must be completed within 30 calendar days of entry or exit, and because many of our families move frequently, we encourage programs not to wait longer than 90 days from entry to submit COSF ratings. This information can be found in the OWS manual KSDE (2011)

Timelines For children transitioning between part C and B, a Part C exit must be entered into the OWS before the child can be entered by Part B. Key Points: “A program exit must be completed on a child moving from Part C before an entry rating can be entered by Part B”, which is another reason for Part C not waiting 90 days to enter Part C exit ratings. This information can be found in the OWS manual KSDE (2011)

Timelines Organizational Exits and Entries refer to movement in and out of local networks/districts. Once a child has an entry COSF completed, each move into or out of an organization (network/district) is entered into the OWS regardless of how long the child was receiving services in that organization. Key Points: For ALL children who have an entry COSF entered into the OWS and leave a program, whether it be a permanent exit or just an organizational exit from a particular network or district, each move into and out of a local “ program/organization” must be recorded into the OWS. Anything that is not considered a permanent exit would be entered as an organizational exit. Make sure everyone understands the distinction between permanent/program exit and organizational exit. We want to stress that it is important for “organizations/programs” to be as prompt as they can in entering exit information into the OWS. Other networks or district are looking for that child within the system and child’s last “ program/organization” must enter the exit in the system before the new “ program/organization” can indicate the child has entered. It doesn’t matter how long the child was in your program. If they came for only 1 week, the state wants to capture that information, so as we look at statewide data we know how transit services have been for a child. The state encourages Part C programs to be as timely as they can when exiting children who are transitioning to Part B. The Part B program only has 30 days from the beginning of Part B services to compete an entry COSF rating, if they are going to be able to use the Part C information, the district will need the exit COSF rating long before the 90 days Part C is allowed to enter the child’s exit COSF. A district will not be able to enter their COSF entry ratings until Part C enters their exit ratings. While best practice is for Part C and Part B to share data on a child transitioning at age 3, including but not limited to their curriculum based assessment data, it is up to the local district whether they use Part C exit ratings as their entry ratings for Part B. This information can be found in the OWS manual KSDE (2011)

Timelines July 31st Last date for submitting COSF entry rating data to KDHE or KSDE for all newly identified children entering a Part C or B program Last date for submitting COSF exit rating data for children permanently exiting a Part C or B Program between July 1st and June 30th of the fiscal year Key Points: Clarify that for those kids with summer birthdays, COSF ratings cannot be entered before the last date of Part C services or the first date of Part B services. It is up to local preschool programs to come up with procedures related to children served in extended school year (ESY), i.e., who should complete the exit COSF for a child the summer before kindergarten? KSDE (2011)

Timelines August 1st – August 31st Data Verification Key Points:
Talk about how this process works in your network or district and what you want them to know regarding Data Verification. Explain that Kan Serve and OWS are not connected. Explain that information comes to: Part C – the Part C coordinator Part B – the Director of SPED, the EC contact person, and is posted on the KSDE website

4 Steps to Rating a Child on the ECOs
This section will review the 4 step process of determining a rating.

ECO Rating Scale Ratings are made by teams using child assessment data
Teams rate a child on each of the 3 ECOs It is not an assessment tool It uses information from an authentic assessment to get a global sense of how the child is doing at a point in time Key Points: It is very important that teams remember the 7 point rating scale is NOT an assessment instrument. The rating is a judgment, based on authentic assessment information . Because the rating is NOT a score, it has limited use outside of reporting to OSEP. So use caution when thinking about the rating, it is a way to make a global observation of a child’s performance at two points in time: once when the child enters the program, and once when the child exits the program. Authentic assessment is assessment of the child across settings and situations from multiple sources – observation, interviews, and participation in activities and routines Description of Authentic Assessment "Authentic Assessment refers to the systematic recording of developmental observations over time by familiar and knowledgeable caregivers about the naturally occurring competencies of young children in daily routines" (Bagnato & Yeh Ho, 2006, in Bagnato, 2007), and defined as “the developmentally appropriate alternative to conventional tests and testing practices” (Bagnato, 2007) "Information is captured through direct observation and recordings, interviews, rating scales, and observed samples of the natural or facilitated play and daily living skills of children." (Bagnato, 2007) "When assessment is authentic, it yields information about functional behavior in children's typical/natural settings—what they really know and do." (Bagnato 2007) When contrasted with conventional testing, authentic assessment "often provides us with a very different picture of the child's strengths and needs" (Bagnato, 2007) ECO Center (2010a)

Critical Assumptions Related to the Three Child Outcomes
Measuring achievement of the outcome is based on comparison with age expectations. Children of different ages will demonstrate achievement in different ways, so expectations change with age There are many pathways to functional outcomes (e.g. using sign language, wheelchair) There is overlap across the outcomes Documentation for the rating of each outcome must include functional skills (The meaningful behaviors the child is able to carry out in a meaningful context) Key Points: There are some Critical Assumptions Related to the Three Child Outcomes: First, that measuring achievement of the outcomes is based on comparison with age expectations. This is part of the federal mandate, and is different from our IFSP and IEP process where we measure a child’s progress compared to him or herself. The requirement to compare a child’s skills with age expectations means that all professionals participating in this process need to have information and resources necessary to ensure a good understanding of age level expectations. Second, children of different ages will demonstrate achievement in different ways, so expectations change with age. This means that for each child, we will look at his or her skills and compare those to what we might expect for a child given his or her age. The age appropriate skills and behaviors for a child of age 3 years would be very different from those we would expect for a child of age 4 years or 5 years. Finally, there are many pathways to functional performance for children with developmental disabilities (e.g., using sign language, wheelchair). A child may have alternative but functional ways of participating in everyday life. ECO Center (2010a)

Steps to Making and Documenting Early Childhood Outcome Ratings
Collect Assessment Information Document observed functional behaviors that are age appropriate, immediate foundational and foundational using the Documenting the Basis for the Rating Form for each outcome Answer questions on the Decision Tree for Summary Rating Discussions form to determine a rating for each outcome Complete the Child Outcome Summary Form. Key Points: Teams follow these steps using the tools indicated to make ECO ratings for each outcome area. When teams from across Kansas follow these steps, the reliability of our data is strengthened. Point out these 3 forms can be downloaded from the KITS ECO page from either the folder for What a Direct Service Provider Needs to Know, or What a Trainer Needs to Know.

Collecting Assessment Information
STEP 1 The First Step is the collecting of Authentic Assessment Information Collecting Assessment Information

Curriculum Based Assessments
Assessment and Programming Evaluation System (AEPS) Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers or Preschoolers with Special Needs Child Observation Record (High Scope) Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum Assessment/ GOLD Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP) Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (TPBA2) Work Sampling System Key Points: Before making the rating, teams need to collect baseline information. One of the requirements is that teams use a CBA At least 1 person on the team needs to administer one of the 8 CBA tools in its entirety. Ideally, the whole team would see benefit in using the CBA tool and using those tools on an ongoing basis to help with developing goals/outcomes for a student. it makes sense to measure a child’s performance in the outcome areas within a curricular framework, hence a CBA tool. That is how KS decided upon a CBA as the age anchored measurement tool needed to complete the COSF rating scale. The CBAs were chosen after surveying the field to find the 8 most frequently used CBA tools. Six of the assessments are for children birth through 5 or 6. The IGDIs are only for infants and toddlers, and the Work Sampling System is only for children 3 and older. Programs don’t have to choose just one CBA The entry and exit CBA tools do not have to be the same The only change to the original list of approved CBA tools is the acceptance of the new Teaching Strategies GOLD for existing users of the Creative Curriculum who choose to transition to the new assessment system. May want to talk about the reason curriculum based assessments were chosen to facilitate authentic assessment, facilitate the development of functional goals/outcomes, ongoing assessment of progress in daily activities and routines. Rationale for Requiring CBA Authentic curriculum-based assessment provides information about the child's development or functional status (what s/he can and cannot do) across multiple domains, identifies where the child is functioning within an array of objectives, based on developmental norms (providing clear entry points within the program's curriculum), tracks child progress (both formative and summative assessment), invites and evaluates interdisciplinary team collaboration, and offers continual information on the effectiveness of instruction. (Bagnato, 2009, pp ) KSDE (2011)

Other Sources of Data Record Review Interview Observation
Other Tests including screening information Information from families must be used to determine if functional behaviors are observed across environments Key Points: Information obtained from one of the approved CBAs can be supplemented with additional information as necessary to complete the COSF rating process. Keep in mind: The COSF form requires that teams use more than one source of data when documenting the supporting evidence for the rating (be ready with examples from your program, e.g., HELP and interview of parent; AEPS and the Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology/CAAP) Teams are also required to document parent information when listing supporting evidence for each of the three outcomes KSDE (2011)

Parent Information is Needed
Family members see the child in situations that professionals do not Need to determine what child does in a variety of settings (i.e. home, store, child care setting) Develop a method for getting information needed from family Listen as the family shares their story for information related the child’s engagement, independence and social relationships across routines and activities Ask parents to show or describe their child in relation to the outcomes Observe how the child and parent interact Set up play scenarios for the child and family Key Points: We need families to provide data for the COSF ratings as they see the child in settings that others on the team do not. They know the child better than anyone else on the team. During the assessment process, we need to think about how we will gather this information and make a plan for its collection If a child is only receiving SL services, how will this information be collected? Parent Participation – 2 issues How to solicit family information: "The Kansas CBA Matrix identifies the level of family participation inherent in each of the 8 approved measures, which ranges from direct (i.e., separate family report interview, parent training available) to indirect (i.e., parents are routinely kept informed of child progress, may provide input regarding strengths and needs). Many programs have their own family interviews, child and family interest surveys, or other methods of soliciting family information. If you are looking for a simple format for soliciting information specific to the 3 early childhood outcomes, you might consider something like the MD Family Worksheet (probably need to provide a handout?). If parent or other family member is directly involved in the ratings process, need to ensure that they understand the both the ratings process and their role. The new ECO video Child Outcomes Step By Step would be a resource to use with families, to provide an orientation to the ratings. See also the resources section of the KITS website to download a KS-ECO Family Brochure and to follow the link to the ECO Center's page "Especially for Families" Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

Exception to the CBA Requirement
When children are receiving services for one area of concern (i.e. speech, OT, or PT services only) and can be confidently rated a 6 or 7 in each outcome area on the basis of record review, observation, interview and other tests, then the requirement for the Curriculum Based Assessment is waived. HOWEVER, keep in mind: All 3 Early Childhood Outcomes must be rated on a COSF at entry and exit for every child, even those receiving only one service. Every child who receives only one service (i.e. speech, OT or PT) does not automatically rate a 6 or a 7. The team needs to make individual determinations. If a child receives a 5 or less on any one outcome, one of the 8 approved curriculum-based assessments must be completed (entirely) and included as documentation for all 3 outcomes on the COSF. Review the exception word for word. KSDE (2011)

Instrument Crosswalks
Identify relationships between assessment instruments and the three child outcome Display how content on a given assessment instrument is related to each outcome Are not meant to be used as a “checklist” or “score sheet” for measuring child outcomes Find instrument crosswalks on Key Points: Instrument Crosswalks for the ECOs are tools that practioners can use to help them identify skills from a CBA that might be important for each of the outcomes The crosswalks can not be used in place of a CBA The CBA must be given in its entirety Link will take them to crosswalks for any of the CBA that have been crosswalked by either ECO Center or publisher. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

Documenting the Basis for the Rating (DBRF)
STEP 2 Documenting the Basis for the Rating (DBRF)

Documenting the Basis for the Rating
Key Points: This form was first introduced in the Spring 2010 training and while it is not required, we do believe this form is helpful for teams to organize information to complete the COSF. We also see that the teams that use this form seem to be more consistent in the ways they rate students. This form makes it easier for teams to document a child’s functioning in a consistent manner and makes answering the questions on the Decision Tree much more consistent. It can also be helpful to teams as they consider IEP/IFSP goals related to supporting children’s growth across the three outcomes. The link to this form is on the slide and can also be found on the KITS ECO web page in PDF and Word versions, for teams that want to complete the form electronically. Can be downloaded from:

Documenting the Basis for the Documenting the Basis for the Rating
Age Expected –Skills and behaviors demonstrated are what one would expect for a same age child Immediate Foundational-Skills like that of a slightly younger child that occur just prior to age-expected functioning Foundational—Earlier skills conceptually linked to later skills and behaviors Key Points: To use the DBRF, teams need to understand these three terms Age Expected: the Early Childhood Outcomes measurement and reporting system requires states to compare the functioning of children in Part C and Part B preschool programs to age expectations because age expectations provide a common standard for all young children. One of the goals of early childhood services is to prepare children to succeed in kindergarten and, in kindergarten, children will be expected to meet grade level standards. OSEP recognizes that not all children will be able to function comparable to same age peers at the end of early childhood services, but the system will now be tracking how many have achieved or moved closer to functioning at an age expected level. Immediate Foundational: An important developmental concept for understanding how to use the COSF scale is the concept of immediate foundational skills. The child’s functioning does not meet age expectations, but the child demonstrates skills and behaviors that occur developmentally just prior to age expected functioning and are the basis on which to build age-expected functioning. Thinking about functional behaviors that are between 3-4 months below age expectations provides a guide for determining if the behavior is an immediate foundational skill. Foundational: Foundational skills are earlier skills that serve as the base and are conceptually linked to later skills. All skills that lead to higher levels of function are foundational skills. The foundational skills that occur developmentally just prior to age-expected functioning can be described as the immediate foundational skills in that they are the most recent set of foundational skills that children master and move beyond. NOTE: Some skills get replaced by newer skills and others continue in children’s and adult’s repertoires throughout life. To identify whether functioning that continues throughout life constitutes an age expected or immediate foundational skill (i.e. eating with a fork, turn-taking) ask yourself at what age one would first expect to see this functioning and how close is that to the child’s current age? Additional information on Immediate Foundational Skills is available in hand-outs, Age-Expected and Immediate Foundational Skills (including quiz) and the Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF) 7-Point Rating Scale Refer also to the KSELD. An alignment of the KS Early Learning Standards with the 3 outcomes and a link to resources on Age-Expected Child Development can be found on the KITS ECO web page. ECO Center (2010)

Activity- Start with handouts from example COSF ratings for Jennifer Pretend Kid (Entry). Here is an example of a completed DBRF based on assessment information that was gathered. Walk group through all three outcomes demonstrating the kinds of information that was included. Note the team worked hard to find examples of the indicators for each of the outcomes, functional information. Next move to the AVA case study –provide time to read AVA’s narrative. May want to divide the written narrative into sections and assign individuals or tables to read and report on only 1 section. Work through completing the DBRF for Outcome 1 as a large group Then do last two outcomes on DBRF in smaller groups Give them a time limit. They may find lots of examples, but for this purpose we want to find the things that stand out: examples of each of the outcomes and their indicators. AVA

Using the Decision Tree
STEP 3 With your DBRF completed, The next step is to use the decision tree to make a rating on all three outcomes Using the Decision Tree

Definitions for Outcome Ratings
Review the Definitions for Outcomes Ratings Handout

Ratings Scale Descriptor Statements
Review the Rating Scale Descriptor Statements Handout

Using the Decision Tree
Key Points: Once teams have organized assessment information they use the Decision Tree for Summary Rating Discussions to assign a rating in each outcome area. The link on the slide leads to this form, which is available on the KITS website. If your team is using the Decision Tree, and has been for some time, be sure you are using the most current version, dated 5/19/09.

Rating Scale Jeopardy $100 $100 $100 $200 $200 $200 $300 $300 $300
Age appropriate functioning – no concerns Mix of age appropriate and not age appropriate functioning No age appropriate functioning – not yet showing immediate foundational skills Some age appropriate functioning but very little No age appropriate functioning – lots of immediate foundational skills Age appropriate functioning – some concerns Rarely shows age appropriate functioning No age appropriate functioning – some immediate foundational skills Age appropriate functioning $100 $100 $100 $200 $200 $200 Note: you must be in ‘slide show’ mode for this to work. You should click on each box and the ‘door’ slides away. Answer key: (1) 100—rating=7, (2)100—rating=5, (3) 100—rating=1. (1)200—rating=4, (2)200—rating=3, (3)200—rating=6. (1)300—rating=4, (2)300—rating=2, (3)300—rating= 6-7 $300 $300 $300 Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

Using the Decision Tree with the DBFR Form
Talk Jennifer Pretend Kid’s entry rating using the decision tree questions and this form. Now refer back to AVA’s case study, your completed DBRF, and the decision tree to rate her on all 3 outcomes.

Activity: Small groups use their DBRF and decision trees to create ratings for AVA
Note: there are additional example COSF ratings on the KITS ECO web page for teams wanting more practice. AVA

Documenting the Rating on the COSF
STEP 4 Documenting the Rating on the COSF

COSF Rating Must Be Completed by Teams
Team is defined as more than one professional Team members must understand: child’s functioning across settings and situations age-expected child development the content of the 3 ECOs how to use the rating scale Strategies for making team ratings include Meeting when the team is already together Immediately after an IFSP/IEP or transition meeting At an already scheduled team meeting Use of technology media (i.e., conference call, video chats instant messaging, ) Key Points: Since team members see the child in a variety of settings, team members may not initially agree on the rating, but should, through discussion, reach consensus, just as they do with other team decisions. The DBRF and the Decision Tree can assist teams in reaching consensus. KSDE/KDHE COSF training in spring of 2010 clarified the definition of team as “more than 1 professional”, but guidance suggests that the team does not necessarily have to meet face to face in order to reach consensus on the ratings. And although their input must be documented in the summary sections, there is no federal or state requirement that parents must be part of the team that makes the actual ratings. Unless the parent is actually part of the team making the actual rating do not list the parent as a member of the team on the cover page of the COSF. Meeting as a team can be a challenge, but the end product is worth it.

Completing the COSF Key Points: The COSF is the documentation of the team’s rating. Talk about some of the requirements On the front page indicate the date of the rating – which should be within 30 days of the beginning or ending of services. You are also required to indicate the first or last date of services (as listed on the IFSP or IEP) Each child needs a KIDS ID # - each network/district has in place a strategy for teams to gather this information. Be sure to also use the child’s legal name on the form and not a nickname or a preferred name. List the individuals who were part of the team making the actual rating. The teams members do not have to have been part of the evaluation, but they must have access to the assessment information and understand the rating process. For a child who is receiving speech-only services, when there are not other team members, an administrator or another SLP who reviews the assessment information could serve as team members for the COSF rating. When completing team members’ roles, choose from one of the roles listed on Table 2 Choose the role most closely associated with each persons’ role on the team for this child MUST Document how family information on child functioning was obtained MUST reference family information as a source of information in the Summary of Relevant Results under each outcome. Remember, if the parent is directly involved in making the rating, they need to have had some training on understanding the COSF rating process. Can be downloaded from:

Completing the COSF Key Points:
For an entry and exit COSF – the team must make a rating on the 7 point scale for all three outcomes and document the supporting evidence. At the top of the page, the outcome is listed, along with specific indicators that should be addressed in the summary of relevant information used to determine the rating. Document specific examples of age-appropriate, foundational, and/or immediate foundational skills that led to the rating. All examples must be functional skills and not isolated skills, so include a context in which the child uses the skill Documentation has to support the rating. Documentation must represent functioning across settings and situations. Test scores are optional. They are not required and cannnot be used in the place of functional examples. Documentation must reference information obtained from parents. Supporting information should document what the child is able to do. Only one date should be listed for each source – use the last date of an assessment when an assessment was completed over multiple days. Use Table 3 for documenting sources of information (found in OWS Manual). Document the who or what of record review, interview, or observation in the summary of relevant results (i.e. SLP observed Jamie in his home, review of Dr. Smith’s records, etc.). If a test you are using is not on the list, use “Observation” to document relevant functional information. Only include information actually used in determining rating. Have participants review completed Jennifer Pretendkid example to see how source of information was documented.

Questions 1b, 2b, 3b on Exit When child exits from program (Part C or Part B) the process for completing the rating and the COSF will be repeated In addition, an additional progress question will be completed for each outcome If the child gained even one new functional behavior from entry to exit the answer to the progress question is “yes “ and progress is described Key Points: On exit the team also is required to answer question B indicating whether the child has made progress on this outcome and provide a short summary of the most significant evidence of progress. Also, keep in mind that because we are comparing children to their same age peers, a child who scores a 3 on entry and a 3 on exit has demonstrated progress because we are comparing the child to two different age groups. All three outcomes must be rated Refer to the Impossible Responses handout KSDE (2011)

Activity: In large or small groups, complete Ava’s COSF using her completed DBRF

Outcomes Web System Help Manual
The Outcomes Web System (OWS) Help Manual is available at The manual gives step by step instructions for entering data into OWS Each district and network decide who will enter COSF data into the OWS Sometimes it is a specific member of the team Sometimes it is a data clerk Sometimes it is an administrator Key Points: COSF’s need to be entered into the OWS Each network/district has specific procedures to ensure this happens Some have practitioners enter their own data Some have specific team members who enter the data Some administrators enter the data The KITS website has both the OWS manual in PDF and a link to the OWS manual on the KSDE website

Outcome Web System (OWS)
All users must be registered For support contact Part C – Sarah Walters Part B- Tiffany Smith The OWS has a session setting of 30 minutes Users can not exit the OWS then go back and enter more information, so the complete COSF must be entered before exiting the OWS Key Points: People need to know how to become registered users and who to contact for help with gaining access to the system. WARNING: If there is no server activity for 30 minutes the system will time-out and all data will be lost. Clicking on a button or link will register with the system as activity. We recommend users hit submit when finished entering each piece of data so data is not lost.

How Early Childhood Outcome Data is Reported in Kansas

Key Points: Developmental trajectories are a good way to think about how the numbers we report to OSEP come from the COSF data. A child’s developmental trajectory can be plotted from entry to exit using a points on the 7-point scale. On the graph displayed, the vertical axis shows the child’s level of functioning, corresponding to the 7 points on the rating scale. The dotted line separates overall age appropriate (6-7) from less than age appropriate (1-5). The horizontal axis corresponds to the child’s age in months. To plot a child’s developmental trajectory, we start by plotting his level of functioning at entry. In this example, the child’s entry rating was at a level 3. Because we will just plot entry and exit, we can indicate the entry rating on the left end of the horizontal axis. We will plot the exit rating at the right end of the horizontal axis. At the time of exit, this child’s functioning was at a level 4 in the outcome area. We can plot the exit rating toward the right end of the horizontal axis. Draw a line to show the child’s developmental trajectory. This child came into the program at a level 3 and left at a level 4 in this particular outcome area. The exit rating is below the dotted line, indicating that he did not catch up with his peers and did not leave the program at age level. However, the upward, positive slope indicates that the child made progress. Show participants how a child rated a three and ending with a three would also have made progress. Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who: Did not improve functioning Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. Key Points: States must report their category data annually based on these 5 ratings. COSF was developed for local programsto use to provide this information to the state. The OSEP categories describe types of progress children can make between entry and exit. Two COSF ratings (entry and exit) are needed to calculate the OSEP category that describes a child’s progress.

How the State Calculates OSEP Categories from COSF Responses
COSF Rating 1 COSF Rating 2 Answer to question B on exit OSEP Reporting Category 7 Yes E 6 1 to 5 B 5 1 to 4 No A 3 6 or 7 D 1 or 2 1 2 to 5 C Key Points: Refer to the Federal Reporting Categories handout This is an example of how the COSF ratings are translated into the a-e categories. Talk through a couple examples

Summary Statements For Reporting Progress on Targets
Required Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered or exited 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 Required Summary Statement 2: 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 Key Points: Rather than have a target set for each progress category for each outcome (15 targets to monitor), progress categories are collapsed into two summary statements with targets set for each summary statement for each outcome for a total of 6 targets to be monitored annually. Summary statement 1 is a measure of how many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program. It is the percent of children who made greater than expected gains and actually changed their growth trajectories. It uses the progress categories c + d in the numerator and a + b + c +d in the denominator X 100 to arrive at a percentage of children for summary statement 1 for each of the child outcomes. Summary statement 2 is a measure of how many children were functioning at age expectations when they left the program and includes children who started out behind and caught up and children who entered and exited at age level. It uses the progress categories d + e in the numerator and a + b + c + d + e in the denominator X 100 to arrive at a percentage of children for summary statement 2 for each of the child outcomes. Child outcomes data collected on children who exited the program from July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009 will be reported to OSEP in February These data will be considered baseline data for the ECO outcome. Child outcomes data collected on children who exited the program from July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010 will be reported to OSEP in February These data will be compared to state targets for summary statements 1 and 2 on each outcome. This information is included in the Indicator 7 Q & A posted on the KSDE website and at the Hot Topics link on the KITS ECO Page.

State ECO Targets FY 2009 (Reported on March 15, 2011)
Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Summary Statement 1 % of children who moved closer to same age peers Part C = % Part B = 85.93% Part C = 61.14% Part B = 86.38% Part C = 66.99% Part B = 86.24% Summary Statement 2 % of children who exited at age level Part C = 56.33% Part B = 65.16% Part C = 47.44% Part B = 63.60% Part C = 63.44% Part B = 76.79% Key Points: The reports are a year behind. For Part B/Indicator 7, Kansas only met targets for 7A2 and 7C2. We stayed the same in 7B1, but only missed the others by .6 % or less. The Part C program did not meet their targets, but based on an analysis of the data they were able to reset the baseline data to the percentages above. A data drill down process with investigative questions is being refined to assist districts and networks with looking at significant discrepancies between their ECO data and the state percentages across summary statements and progress categories.

ECO Outcomes and the IFSP/IEP
Key Points: We have been talking about reporting related to the ECOs, however more important is the thought behind the outcomes and how we might incorporate them in IFSPs and IEPs Remember the overarching goal of early intervention “… 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, in preschool or school programs, and in the community.” And remember that the three outcomes are the goals we have for the kids leaving our programs. Our programs are being measured based on these goals and our ability to change children’s growth trajectories in these three outcomes: An ability to develop and maintain positive social relationships An ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills An ability to take appropriate action to get their needs met It makes both practical and common sense that our kids’ IEPs and IFSP goals/outcomes would reflect ECO.

Steps to Integrating EC Outcomes (ECO) with the IFSP/IEP
In the review of existing data, look for information related to the ECO IF the child is transitioning from a Part C Infant Toddler Program, organize the discussion of the child at the transition conference in relation to the ECO During the evaluation, probe for information on caregiver concerns related to the ECO. Encourage families to describe their child’s typical day in the context of ECO areas, such as how he interacts with others, how he learns and solves problems, and how he gets his own needs met. Compare the child’s functional skills and behaviors with those expected for other children his age. Key Points: There are multiple ways that teams can use the early childhood outcomes to collect, organize and share information during the assessment and IEP process. As teams review existing data, they can look for information related to how the child uses skills across the three outcomes. IF a child is transitioning from a Part C Infant Toddler Program, teams might choose to organize the discussion of the child at the transition meeting in relation to each of the outcomes rather than by developmental domains. Early childhood outcomes are a reflection of a child’s functional use of skills. Discussions related to what children can and can not do within a specific developmental domain often lack information about a child’s functional use of those skills. During the evaluation, teams should probe for information on caregiver concerns related to the ECO. Encourage families to describe their child’s typical day in the context of how he interacts with others, how he learns and solves problems, and how he gets his own needs met. In addition to comparing where a child is developmentally in relation to his or her same age peers, teams should compare the child’s functional use of skills and behaviors in every day activities with those expected for other children of the same age. ECO Center (2010b)

Steps to Integrating EC Outcomes (ECO) with the IFSP/IEP
Include functional authentic assessment in the evaluation that will provide the team with information on all three ECO. Consider the child’s functioning in the context of everyday activities and routines, in the three ECO areas. Document supporting evidence for ECO rating throughout the assessment and evaluation process. During the IEP meeting, organize the discussion of the child in relation to the ECO. Discuss how the child is functioning in the ECO areas and how the child’s skills and behaviors in the ECO areas compare with other children the same age. In the PLAAFP, organize the description of strengths and needs as they relate to the three outcome areas. Key Points: During the assessment process, teams should select assessment methods that will help them consider a child’s functioning in everyday activities and routines. Keeping in mind that the team will have to provide an early childhood outcome rating if a child is found eligible for Part B services, the team should begin early in the evaluation process to document supporting evidence for ECO ratings. During the IEP meeting, teams can also organize the discussion of the child in relation to each of the 3 outcomes: present level statements can be written as a description of the child’s strengths and need as they relate to the three outcome areas. Teams should also consider the three outcomes as they prioritize goals for a child’s IEP. ECO Center (2010b)

Family Strengths and Needs Summary
Key Points Refer to Handouts: Family Worksheet: A look at my Child’s Development (examples are provided for entry and exit) This is an example of one way teams can gain insight into how a child’s needs in the three outcomes areas might be impacting them Could be used to help the team understand the family’s priorities Could be used to set priorities for goals/outcomes

IFSP Outcomes Step 1: Determine functional area(s) Eating and Chewing
Step 2: What routine(s) does this affect? Meal time (e.g. lunch, dinner restaurant) Step 3: Child will participate in (routines in question) “Alicia will participate in lunch, dinner and going to the restaurant…” Step 4: by ----ing (address specific behaviors: “… by chewing her food” Key Points: So how would this look if we considered the outcomes when writing and IFSP Outcomes? The same could be applied to an IEP goal, but for this example let’s think about IFSP outcomes. Determines what the family would like to see happen for their child/family. Use information from the Family Worksheet as well as additional information collected through the evaluation process. This IFSP Outcome would impact outcome 3 (taking appropriate action to meet needs) but might also have an impact on Outcome 1 (developing positive social emotional skills and relationships). Washington Systems Improvement Project

Child Outcomes: Example
This “Romeo will play with toys and eat meals with his family by sitting without support” Rather than “Romeo will improve muscle tone for sitting” Key Points In this outcome example what outcomes might be impacted? Primarily Outcome 3 – to be able to sit without support will improve Romeo’s independence and facilitate his ability to get his needs met By including information related to the functional context, it is a reminder to the team about why this is a priority. Washington Systems Improvement Project

Key Points: This form provides another method of one way teams might want to organize, share and use assessment information to write present level statements. It is available for download in the TASN EC IEP module. Additional resources can also be found in the KITS TA packet entitled Creating Meaningful and Measurable Early Childhood IEP Goals on the KITS website. Each section of the form corresponds to one of the early childhood outcomes. Teams are encouraged to list a child’s current strengths and abilities as they relate to each outcomes. handout

Example Outcome 2: Acquire and Use of Knowledge and Skills
Involves: Thinking Reasoning Remembering Problem solving Using symbols and language Understanding physical and social worlds Includes: Early concepts – symbols, pictures, numbers, classification, spatial relationships Imitation Object permanence Expressive language and communication Early literacy Strengths Able to group by classification When faced with a problem will usually ask for adult assistance Shows understanding of some age appropriate concepts (colors, big/little, in/on) Copies simple shapes and 3 letters of first name Beginning representational drawing. Counts 2 objects correctly. Able to use two hands to manipulate objects Answers simple factual questions Areas for growth When given 2 or 3 step directions, will follow 1 of the steps before requiring adult support. Needs visual cues to choose from when making a prediction about a story or event. Not able to answer questions (how, why) Key Points Let’s consider this form in relation to an IEP. In this example for Outcome 2, you can see that Johnny is able to to group by classification, ask for adult assistance when faced with a problem, understand age appropriate concepts, copy simple shapes and 3 letters of his first name, create some representational drawing, count 2 objects, use two hands to manipulate objects and answer simple factual questions. He has difficulty with multi-step directions, making predications about a story or event and answering questions that require reasoning.

Outcome 2: Acquiring and using knowledge and skills. Johnny has acquired some beginning concept knowledge. He is able to classify objects by size and basic attribute, name colors, understand beginning concepts (colors, size, prepositions), name 5 letters of his name, and count up to two objects correctly. He is beginning to create representational drawings, cut out shapes with straight lines, and is able to write three letters of his first name. When listening to a story or talking about immediate events, he is able to answer simple factual questions. Johnny has more difficulty with tasks that are less concrete. When given 2 or 3 step directions, Johnny will follow the first step but requires adult support for the remainder of the steps. This makes it difficult for Johnny to function independently within a preschool classroom. He has difficulty asking questions and answering “how” and “why” questions. During a small group story time, Johnny answered 1 of 6 “how/why” questions asked about the story, which indicates Johnny has difficulty with story comprehension. Key Points: We can see from this example the team has included each of the required components: the black text highlights Johnny’s current performance, the blue text indicates the information related the impact of Johnny’s disability and the red text highlights specific baseline data the team can use to write goals that will support Johnny in improving his ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills.

Goal: By Oct. 20xx, while participating in preschool classroom activities, Johnny will independently follow routine directions of 3 related steps in 4 of 5 opportunities across 3 consecutive days. By Oct. 20xx, when discussing a story, Johnny will answer 8 out of 10 “why” and “how” questions in a mixed question probe. Key Points: The following goals are directly related to needs Johnny has demonstrated in relation to Outcome 2. The team has written the first goal to read “By Oct. 20xx, while participating in preschool classroom activities, Johnny will independently follow routine directions of 3 related steps in 4 of 5 opportunities across 3 consecutive days”. And the second goal states: “By Oct. 20xx, when discussing a story, Johnny will answer 8 out of 10 “why” and “how” questions in a mixed question probe.” Each goal contains the four parts that make it measurable: a time frame, a condition, a behavior and a measurement.

www.kskits.org/ Where to Find Kansas ECO Resources Key Points:
The KITS website is the official repository for Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes resources and training information for both Part C and Part B service providers. A direct link to the Kansas ECO page is prominently displayed in the lower right corner of the KITS home page. Although the organization of the ECO page has changed, the web address has not. There is a hyperlink on this slide to show the KITS website live if wireless is available

Navigating the ECO Web Page
Navigation Pane for KITS Website on every page Key Points: A few tips will assist you in navigating the KITS ECO page. You do not need a login or password. You will notice that the navigation pane is always present on the left side of the page to take you back to the KITS home page, our contact information, links to state and national resources, technical assistance packets and other information, our electronic publications, the KITS Collaborative Training Calendar, and our ever-popular Early Childhood Resource Center. BTW, the ECRC has multiple copies of all 8 approved curriculum based assessments and their supporting materials, including the training DVDs available for some of the assessments. Most of the documents on the ECO page can be downloaded as PDFs, so there is a link to download the most current version of Acrobat Reader, which is free. At the bottom of every page are shortcuts to take you back to the ECO home page (here circled in red), or back to the top of the page you are currently viewing, which you can do by clicking on the little preschool Jayhawk. Finally, if you ever experience difficulty navigating the KITS website or ECO page, our central phone number appears in the lower left corner on every page.

KITS ECO Home Page State Agency Administrators
Tiffany Smith, KSDE, Part B/619 Coordinator Sarah Walters, KDHE, Part C Coordinator KITS Collaborative Training Calendar Also available on the Home page are links to our state agency coordinators, Tiffany and Sarah, as well as a link to the KITS Collaborative Training Calendar where anyone can access information about regional, state, and national training events supporting both the process and the content of the early childhood outcomes, as well as other training opportunities of interest to professionals who work with infants and young children with disabilities and their families.

Introduction What are the Early Childhood Outcomes?
What is the purpose of the KITS ECO Information web page? Click on the Introduction to learn about the Early Childhood Outcomes and why they are important.

Hot Topics What’s new? What’s on the horizon?
Hot Topics is the place to find out about new information and resources posted on the KITS website, or on the KDHE or KSDE websites. For example, currently there is a link to the Indicator 7 Q & A developed by Tiffany and her KSDE colleagues to help local administrators understand the ECO data included this year for the first time in their district public reports. There is also a link to the new case studies posted last spring to help teams work through the COSF scoring process for children receiving “speech-only” services.

OWS Login (opens new window)
User login page for KSDE Web Applications Flash tutorials about the User Login Link to register for login and password for accessing KSDE web applications Key Points: For those of you who will be entering COSF data, there is a link to the OWS login, which takes you to the KSDE website.

What an Administrator Needs to Know
Key Points: ECO Administrative Process Quality Rating Form OWS User Guide/Link to User Login for KSDE Web Applications Process for Obtaining State Student Identifiers for Children 3-5 with IEPs Process for Obtaining State Student Identifiers for Children Birth to Three with IFSPs State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 7: Kansas ECO Targets (See page 53) How to Keep Current

What a Data Entry Person Needs to Know
Key Points: Data Entry Process for ECO Quality Rating Form Outcomes Web System User Guide/Link to User Login for KSDE Web Applications How to Keep Current

What A Direct Service Provider Needs to Know
Key Points: The Quality Rating Form makes a good handout and resource for direct service providers. This page includes a lot of resources for the people actually doing the ratings. Child Outcome Summary Form Process Quality Rating Form Blank COSF template (WORD Doc) and Tables 1 and 2 Link to the OWS User Guide and User Login Blank DBRF Decision Tree Matrix of Curriculum-Based Assessments for Measuring Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes The KSELD Standards and OSEP Early Childhood Outcomes Aligned Impossible Responses on COSF COSF examples How to Keep Current

What a Trainer Needs to Know
Key Points: This folder is for the person or persons responsible for ensuring that all staff involved in making the ratings receive training initially and as new guidance is disseminated to districts and networks. Outcomes Web System User Guide/Link to User Login for KSDE Web Applications Independent Study Group Training How to Keep Current

Independent Study Key Points:
This independent study was designed to be completed by an individual at your own pace. It’s divided into six short sections with material to review and activities to complete. This introductory material will provide the basic information you need to learn from other team members as you participate in the process developed by your network/district and serve as a review as you are learning from others. It combines short voice-over-PPT presentations developed by the ECO Center staff with Kansas specific narrative written by Dr. Margy Hornbeck. Section I: Why Collect Outcomes Data Section II: Understanding the Three Child Outcomes Section III: Assessing the Three Child Outcomes Section IV: The Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Section V: Making the Child Outcomes Ratings Section VI: Completing the COSF

Group Training Key Points:
Group Training resources consist of all of the materials used in our most recent regional COSF training events, incuding Training New Staff [PPT] Group Training Tools and Materials How to Keep Current

Group Training Tools and Materials
Key Points: Group Training Activity Written Case Study of Ava at 40 months Alaska Child Outcomes Summary Process Training Resources (training videos – see case study Part 1: Grant at 20 months) Definitions for Outcome Ratings COSF Template Blank Roles List: Table 2 Sources of Information Used on the COSF: Table 3 Functional Outcomes handout and practice checklist Age Expected and Immediate Foundational Skills handout and practice checklist Documenting the Basis for the Rating in PDF and Word Document Decision Tree Impossible Responses Federal Reporting MD Family Worksheet_Entry MD Family Worksheet_Exit Outcomes For Children COSF examples

COSF Examples The first 3 examples were developed 2 years ago, and are used primarily in training as activities to provide teams with practice in following the COSF ratings process, and, when using a blank COSF and the Decision Tree, as a reliability check for how closely different teams rate the same child, given the same information.

New COSF Examples The newest case studies were developed based on the realization that in many of our programs it is the speech-language pathologist who is taking the lead in the COSF ratings process, based on the number of “speech-only” referrals and the number of children receiving itinerant speech-language services.

How to Keep Current With Kansas ECO Training and Guidance
(Send with “Subscribe Spedexpress” in body of ) Key Points: You can follow the links on this slide to sign up electronically for the KITS listservs and newsletter, or you can send an request to Karen Lawson, our KITS Project Assistant, and she’ll put you on the lists to receive our quarterly KITS Newsletter, the list serv announcements for Part C or Part B programs, or both, and the periodic KITS eUpdates. Send your request to Karen at Administrators of Part B programs who are not already signed up to receive the Spedexpress can send a request to

TA Support Kansas Inservice Training System (KITS) Technical Assistance System Network (TASN) KSDE – Tiffany Smith KDHE – Sarah Walters .

References Bagnato (2007) Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention. New York: Guilford Press. Early Childhood Outcome Center (2010a). Understanding the Three Outcomes, Retrieved from: ECO Center (2010b, July): Integrating Child Outcome Measures with the Individualized IEP Process. Retrieved from: Kansas State Department Of Education, (2011). Outcome Web System User Guide. Retrieved from: Kansas Inservice Training System (2011). Group Training Tools and Materials Folder. Retrieved from: Kasprzak & Rooney (2010, March). Measuring Child Outcomes, Presentation for Delaware; ECO Center & NECTAC. Retrieved 10/3/11 from:

The University of Kansas is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status. KITS is supported through Part B, IDEA Funds from the Kansas State Department of Education (Grant # 26004) and Part C IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Opinions expressed by KITS staff do not necessarily reflect those of the University or State Agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Kansas Inservice Training System 2011 – 2012"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback