Transcript Delaware 619 Meeting

Delaware 619 Meeting
JANUARY 6, 2014
VERNA THOMPSON
[email protected]
Agenda
 Welcome and Introductions
 Child Outcomes Annual Performance Report
 619 Participation in Delaware Stars
 Memorandums of Understanding
 Important Dates
Welcome and Introductions
Happy New Year
 Thank you for sharing time together!
 Introductions and sharing
What is your New Year’s Resolution for 619?
Child Outcomes 2012
Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children with IEPs
who demonstrate improved:
 Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships);
 Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and early
literacy; and
 Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Child Outcomes
 Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool




children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with
IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move
nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who
improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to
same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times
100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a
level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool
children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to
same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs
assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to
same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level
comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs
assessed) times 100.
Child Outcomes
Summary Statements:
 Of those children who entered or exited the program
below age expectations , the percent who
substantially increased their rate of growth by the
time they exited the program.
 The percent of children who were functioning within
age expectations by the time they exited the
program.
Child Outcomes 2012
Targets FFY
Actual FFY 2012
2012 (% of
(% of children)
children)
Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
Of those children who entered or exited the program below
age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially
85.2%
85%
(2011: 84.3%)
increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the
program
The percent of children who were functioning within age
expectations in Outcome A by the time they exited the
54.2%
54%
(2011:
53.5%)
program
Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early
language/communication and early literacy)
Of those children who entered or exited the program below
age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially
87.6%
87.4%
(2011: 83.6%)
increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the
program
The percent of children who were functioning within age
49.8%
49.6%
(2011: 49.5%)
expectations in Outcome B by the time they exited the
program
Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
Of those children who entered or exited the program below
age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially
87.3%
87.1%
(2011: 85.4%)
increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the
program
The percent of children who were functioning within age
65%
69.0%
(2011:
63.5%)
expectations in Outcome C by the time they exited the
program
Summary Statements
1.
2.
1
2.
1
2.
Child Outcomes 2012
A.
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):
FFY 2012
FFY 2012
Number of children
% of children
5
0.6%
94
11.6%
273
33.7%
287
35.5%
150
18.5%
N=809
100%
a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning
b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not
sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to sameaged peers
c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level
nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach
d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers
e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level
comparable to same-aged peers
Total
Child Outcomes 2012
A.
Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including
early language/communication and early literacy):
FFY 2012
FFY 2012
Number of children
% of children
a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning
8
1.0%
b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not
sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to
same-aged peers
81
10.0%
c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level
nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach
319
39.4%
d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a
level comparable to same-aged peers
301
37.2%
e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level
100
12.4%
N= 809
100%
comparable to same-aged peers
Total
Child Outcomes 2012
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs:
FFY 2012
FFY 2012
Number of children
% of children
5
0.6%
b.
Percent of children who improved functioning
but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to
same-aged peers
70
8.7%
c.
Percent of children who improved functioning
to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach
176
21.8%
d.
Percent of children who improved functioning
to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
330
a.
functioning
Percent of children who did not improve
40.8%
e.
Percent of children who maintained functioning
at a level comparable to same-aged peers
Total
228
28.2%
N=809
100%
Child Outcomes
Next Steps:
 Visits to each school district to provide:





Local Child Outcome data
Comparisons between 2011 and 2012
Comparisons between actual data and state targets
Comparisons between state and local
Analysis – data quality and program evaluation
 Who could be invited to meeting?
 Administrators?
 Teachers? Therapists?
Delaware Stars
 Delaware Stars Work Group
 Meeting Date
January 15th - needs to be rescheduled
 February 12th 9:00 – EIEIO in afternoon

 Who will be invited?
 619 coordinators
 DIEEC – TA, Case Managers, ECERS validator
 DOE/OEL staff
 Other school district program administrators?
(619 only or should Title 1 and school district ECAP also?)
 Others?
Delaware Stars
 Purpose of Work Group
 Discuss successful strategies 619 programs are implementing
 Determine issues related to 619 participation in Stars QRIS
 Determine solutions to identified issues
 Determine strategies to assist 619 program meet state targets
 Determine possible recommendations for changes to policies
related to 619 participation in Stars QRIS
 Determine areas of support needed
 Other ideas?
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG
______________ (COUNTY) SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CONCERNING PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

This agreement is entered onto by ___________ School District, _________ School
District for the period beginning __________________.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this agreement is to delineate responsibilities for screening, evaluation
and provision of FAPE for preschool children in New Castle County.
This agreement is for those services eligible for preschool children with disabilities until
entry into Kindergarten. Upon entry into Kindergarten, preschool children will follow the
same procedures for district of residence and Choice as do all Kindergarten children.
For purposes of this agreement, districts will be defined as follows:
 District of residence: District in which the child and family live
 District of service : District in which the child is enrolled in a Head Start, ECAP, child
care, preschool program ) {for more than _____ hours (opt)}
The District of service may be the same as the district of residence or may be any of
the districts that are signatory to this agreement.
MOU Between School Districts
Responsibilities of _____ County School Districts.
1. District of service will be responsible for ensuring screening of preschool children who attend the Head Start, ECAP,
child care or preschool facility which is within said district’s boundary. This reflects current practice.
 2. For those children who are enrolled in a Head Start, ECAP, child care or preschool for more than _____ hours in a
district other than the district of residence, comprehensive developmental evaluations will be the responsibility of the
{district of service in which child is enrolled in child care } or {district of residence}.
 3. For those families who request such, provision of FAPE will be the responsibility of the district of service in which the
child is enrolled in a preschool facility (Head Start, ECAP, child care, preschool).
 4. Transportation will be provided by the district of services.
 5. For count purposes, children will be counted by the district of services.
 6. Tuition will be paid by the district of residence to the district of service for children from tuition generating programs.
 7. Early Childhood Outcomes data will be collected and reported for and by the district of services.
 8. It is incumbent upon the district of service to apprise families that entry into Kindergarten will trigger the same
policies and procedures which apply to all rising Kindergarten children. The rules that that govern district of residence and
Choice apply to all K – 12 children. Notification of these rules that govern districts will be given to the district of service as
part of the usual procedures for dissemination of Choice information.

9. By April 15, the district of service will notify the district of residence of children who will be eligible for Kindergarten
the following September. Current practice for transfer of records will apply.
 10. Dispute resolution procedures include:
 Responsibilities of _____ County School Districts.
 1. District of service will be responsible for ensuring screening of preschool children who attend the Head Start, ECAP,
child care or preschool facility which is within said district’s boundary. This reflects current practice.
 2. For those children who are enrolled in a Head Start, ECAP, child care or preschool for more than _____ hours in a
district other than the district of residence, comprehensive developmental evaluations will be the responsibility of the
{district of service in which child is enrolled in child care } or {district of residence}.
 3. For those families who request such, provision of FAPE will be the responsibility of the district of service in which the
child is enrolled in a preschool facility (Head Start, ECAP, child care, preschool).
 4. Transportation will be provided by the district of services.
 5. For count purposes, children will be counted by the district of services.
 6. Tuition will be paid by the district of residence to the district of service for children from tuition generating programs.


MOU Between School Districts
 Additions to MOU
 Deletions
 Questions to be answered
 Issues to be resolved
Future Dates to Remember
 February 12
 EIEIO
 February 27
 Still Listening Conference
 TBA
 619/Stars Work Group
 Ages and Stages Training
 Next 619 Meeting
Other Issues
 Next Steps
 Thank you for coming!