1. Presented at ECEA-SCASS Meeting Savannah, Georgia October, 2010 OSEP Initiatives on Early Childhood Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler Early Childhood Outcomes Center SRI International

2. Topics What state are required to report State approaches Most recent data Child Outcomes Measurement Framework 2 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

3. Reporting Requirement for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education 3 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

4. Why does the federal government want data on child outcomes? Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

5. Requires goals and indicators be established for IDEA Indicators and data collection for school age population included data on outcomes Previously, for early childhood data had been collected on: Number of children served (Part C) Settings (both Part C and 619 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed in 1993

6. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 130 programs examined in 2002; 50% programs had no performance data Programs looking at inputs, not results Part C and Section 619  No long-term child outcome goals or data  Department of Education needs to develop a strategy to collect annual performance data in a timely manner OSEP: PART evaluation results (2002)

7. SEC. 616. > MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT. ``(a) Federal and State Monitoring.….. (2) Focused monitoring.--The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities described in paragraph (1) shall be on-- (A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; IDEA 2004

8. 8 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

9. What States Report: 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 3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers

10. Early Childhood Outcomes Center10

11. Reporting details Progress for all children who exited between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010 Stayed in the program at least 6 months Data will be reported to OSEP in February 2011 Data reported for the first time for children who exited in 07-08 year. 11 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

12. 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 [6] 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 [6] years of age or exited the program. 12

13. Formula for SS 1 (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 13

14. Formula for SS 2 (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 14

15. State approaches 15 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

16. 16 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

17. 17 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

18. State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes Approach Part C (56 states/jur) Preschool (59 states/jur) One tool statewide7/56 (13%)9/59 (15%) Publishers’ online analysis 3/56 (5%)6/59 (10%) COSF 7 pt. scale41/56 (73%)38/59 (64%) Other5/56 (9%)7/59 (10%)

19. Child Outcomes Rating Form (COSF) 7-point rating scale with defined criteria for each point Criteria describe child’s functioning relative to same aged peers Child’s team uses multiple sources of information to assign rating Rating assigned at program entry and program exit 19 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

20. The State Data for ‘08-’09 20Early Childhood Outcomes Center

21. N=66,000

24. N=113,700

27. Early Childhood Outcomes Center27 A Framework and Self Assessment for Building a Child Outcomes Measurement System

28. 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 self assessment 28 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

29. 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 29 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

30. Process for Framework Development Built off what we had learned from ECO work with states and previous ECO conceptual framework Literature review Repeated discussion and review internally and with 7 Partner States 30

31. Framework Partner States StatePart C619 CaliforniaX ColoradoXX DelawareXX MaineXX MinnesotaXX New YorkX OhioXX 31

32. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 32

33. Early Childhood Outcomes Center33 The state has effective procedures for collecting, storing, and transmitting data to the state.

34. Early Childhood Outcomes Center34 State coordinates child outcomes measurement and data use across EC systems.

35. Quality Indicator Provides additional detail as to what constitutes quality implementation of the component. 18 quality indicators across the 7 components 35Early Childhood Outcomes Center

36. Quality Indicators for 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. 36Early Childhood Outcomes Center

37. Structure of Self Assessment Components (7) = Major areas of framework –Quality Indicators (18 total) = Statements of basic requirements of a quality COMS Elements (number varies with each indicator) = Define what constitutes high quality on the Quality Indicator. 37Early Childhood Outcomes Center

38. 38Early Childhood Outcomes Center

39. 39Early Childhood Outcomes Center

40. 40

41. 41 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

42. 42

43. The Scale for the Quality Indicators 43 Early Childhood Outcomes Center Implementation of Elements Quality Indicator Score All elements are fully implemented 7 Nearly all elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process 6 Most of the elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process. 5 At least one element is fully implemented and the rest are in process 4 All of the elements are in process 3 Some of the elements are in process 2 None of the elements are yet in process 1

44. Early Childhood Outcomes Center44

45. Recommended State Approach for Using the Self Assessment 1.Complete the entire self assessment. 2.Identify the component(s) and quality indicators to address first. 3.Develop action plan to improve the related elements. 4.Implement improvement activities. 5.Re-assess status and identify “next step” priorities at regular intervals 45 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

46. Is and Isn’t Is a comprehensive resource to alert states to all the pieces that need to be in place to have a well functioning COMS Is not a cookbook or roadmap with each step in the process spelled out. –Way too many decisions! 46 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

47. Where would a state start? 47 Early Childhood Outcomes Center Questions (Analysis) Purpose

48. Packaging Entire tool will exist online –Live link from each element to a “back up” section –Profile will be filled automatically based on the QI pages Will develop a version with live links to the back up and profile that will operate off line. Version that can be printed off as a manual. 48 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

49. Next steps for ECO Populate the COMS framework with resources related to the components Revise the self assessment based on feedback Develop a framework for a Family Outcomes Measurement System 49Early Childhood Outcomes Center

50. System for Producing Good Child and Family Outcomes Good Federal policies and programs Good State policies and programs High quality services and supports for children 0-5 and their families Good outcomes for children and families Good Local policies and programs Information infrastructure Evidence Based Practice Adequate funding Strong Leadership Prof’l Development Preservice Inservice

51. Early Childhood Outcomes Center 51 Early Childhood Information Infrastructure: Data Needed for Program Improvement WHOSERVICES COSTPERSONNEL OUTCOMES

52. For more information For updates to the framework and the self- assessment and resources to support the quality indicators: www.the-eco-center.org 52 Early Childhood Outcomes Center