Transcript Part C and Preschool Child Outcome Indicators

Early Childhood and
Accountability
OSEP’s Project
Director’s Meeting
August 2006
1







2
Jennifer Tschantz, OSEP
Lou Danielson, OSEP
Kathleen Hebbeler, SRI International
Corry Robinson, University of CO
Mary McLean, University of WI-Milwaukee
Beth Rous, University of Kentucky
Pat Trohanis, University of NC, NECTAC
Objectives



3
Provide background to OSEP’s early childhood
outcomes work
Hear diverse perspectives on critical issues
related to early childhood assessment and
accountability
Facilitate a dialogue on these critical issues
Why the focus on early childhood
outcomes?
4

Improve results for young children with
disabilities and their families

Meeting a need in the field

Development of outcomes for general early
childhood programs

Address GPRA, PART, and IDEA 2004
Approach



5
Short-term: obtain data from the States
regarding child and family outcome GPRA
indicators used to assess program
performance at the Federal Level
Long-term: support the development of State
early childhood outcome data collection used
for program improvement by States, local
programs and service providers
On-going stakeholder involvement
OSEP’s Key Investments

Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center
–
–

General Supervision Enhancement Grants (GSEGs)
–
–

2004 = 18 awards focused on ec outcomes
2006 = 9 award focused on ec outcomes
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center
(NECTAC)
–
6
Funded Fall 2003
Provides leadership and technical guidance
Provision of TA and 2 national conferences
State Performance Plan (SPP) and
Annual Performance Report(APR)




7
Each state required to submit SPP in
December 2005 and an APR beginning Feb.
2007
Part C SPP has 14 indicators
Part B SPP (includes preschool) has 20
indicators
Early childhood outcomes are part of the
SPP/APR
Critical Events






8
Spring 2005 – Public input on what should be collected
with regard to child and family outcomes
Summer 2005 – OSEP released the reporting
requirements
December 2005 – States submitted their plans for
outcome data collection in their State Performance
Plan
Spring 2006 – States begin collecting data
February 2007 – Status and entry data due
February 2008 – first progress data due
OSEP Reporting Requirements: Part C
and Preschool Child Outcomes
Percent of children who demonstrate improved:



9
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
Reporting Categories
a.
% of children who reach or maintain functioning at a
level comparable to same-age peers
b.
% of children who improve functioning but do not
achieve functioning comparable to same age peers
c. % of children who do not improve functioning
3 outcomes x 3 percentages = 9 numbers
10
Proposed Change to Reporting
Categories
CURRENT
a. % of children who reach or
maintain functioning at a level
comparable to same-aged peers
PROPOSED CHANGE
a. % of children who maintain
functioning at a level comparable to
same-aged peers
b. % of children who improved
functioning to reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers
11
b. % of children who improve
functioning (not in a)
c. % of children who improve
functioning but did not reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers
c. % of children who did not
improve functioning
d. % of children who did not
improve functioning
Additional information about child
indicators





12
Child must be in program at least 6 months
Outcomes are broad and functional
All outcome areas apply to all children regardless of
area receiving services
These progress indicators compare entry to exit data
for each child, requiring a minimum of two data points
Not mandating assessment tools, States have flexibility
to choose own tool or tools.
Analysis of State Performance
Plans



13
ECO summarized State Plans for collecting
child outcome data
Based on SPPs submitted in December 2005
Many States doing more than what they sent in
and many state plans have evolved since
December
SPP Analysis:
Part C Outcomes Data Sources
#
%
Formal assessment
instruments
Parent report
45
80%
25
45%
Observation
14
25%
Clinical opinion
10
18%
IFSP goals & objectives
6
11%
Record review
4
7%
Not reported
6
11%
Data Source
14
SPP Analysis:
Preschool Outcomes Data Sources
#
%
Formal assessment
instruments
Observation
45
80%
12
21%
Parent report
11
19%
Teacher/provider report
8
14%
IEP goals & objectives
1
2%
Clinical opinion
1
2%
Not reported
10
17%
Data Source
15
Commonly Reported
Assessment Instruments: Part C

Of 28 states who listed specific assessment
instruments:
–
–
–
–
–

16
HELP- 15 states
BDI/BDI-2- 13 states
AEPS- 11 states
Creative Curriculum- 6 states
ELAP- 6 states
Not yet determined- 23 states
Commonly Reported
Assessment Instruments: Preschool

Of 31 states who listed specific assessment
instruments:
–
–
–
–
–
–

17
BDI/BDI-2- 9 states
Creative Curriculum- 8 states
Brigance- 7 states
High Scope COR- 6 states
AEPS- 5 states
State developed assessments- 7 states
Not yet determined or not reported- 27 states
State approaches to assessments



18
One assessment selected by state
List of assessments developed by state;
programs pick
Programs can use whatever they have
been using
ECO Child Outcomes Summary
Form (COSF)


19
States need to be able to aggregate data across tools –need
a “common metric” to which data from different assessments
can be converted
COSF
– Provides “scores” directly on each of the 3 outcomes
– Allows different assessment data to be transformed to a
common metric (1 to 7 scale)
– Allows for increments of significant progress to be tracked
over time
– Allows for any degree of progress to be tracked over time
Use of the form



21
ECO envisioned the form as the final step in a
team process where the child’s functioning was
discussed and consensus was reached
Alternatives: One professional completing,
team members completing the form individually
“Behind the Scenes” Alternative: Converting
online assessment data directly to the 7-point
scale
Current Activities




22
States currently focused on training
Development of guidance materials on the
COSF
Reliability studies on the COSF
Encouraging states to start thinking about how
they will use these data
Summary



All States are required to submit data on 3 outcomes
for all children participating in Part C and Part B
Preschool programs.
States implementing a variety of approaches to
produce these data
Information from assessments are critical
–
–
–
23
Single assessment statewide
Small set of approved assessments
Any assessment in use
Summary

24
States are making critical decisions related to
assessment right now.
Questions for the Panel
25
Assessment Tools / Use of Data
Is it professionally acceptable (and will
the data be valid) to use instruments
designed for screening and eligibility,
progress monitoring, or other purposes
for accountability?
26
Assessment Tools / Use of Data
Can and should the same assessment
data be used for accountability, program
improvement and individual progress
monitoring purposes?
 Can data providers are collecting for
other purposes (i.e., progress monitoring)
be credible for accountability?

27
Training
What is your sense of the current level of
expertise of the field with regard to early
childhood assessment?
 What has to be done to increase the
overall level of knowledge of providers?

28
Families
 What
is the role of the family in early
childhood assessment for
accountability purposes?
 How do we include families in a
meaningful way?
29
Assessment Practices
How can we ensure that
accountability has a positive impact
on assessment practices in early
childhood and promotes authentic
assessment?
30