View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Target Sett ing For Indicator #7 Chi ld Outcomes
WDPI Stakeholder GroupDecember 16, 2009
R u t h C h v o j i c e kS t a t e w i d e C h i l d O u t c o m e s C o o r d i n a t o r
1
OSEP Child Outcomes
2
Goals for today
Review Indicator 7 dataSet targets for two summary
statements for each of the three child outcomes
3
Indicator #7 – Child Outcomes
Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and
3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
4
Basic Reporting Requirements
Districts determine child’s level of
functioning using a 7-point scale and
report entry
and exit data to
the state
State convert
s the data to
5 progres
s categories and reports to OSEP
New – State
tabulates data
from 5 progress categories into 2 summary statemen
ts and reports to OSEP
5
Data Timeline
20005-2006 •Small Pilot – 16 Districts •Children who entered services April 1 – June 30, 2006
2006 – 2007 •Began sampling – Districts in 2006-2007 Self- Assessment Cycle
2007-2008•Districts in 2007-2008 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample •February 2008 APR reported all children who exited 2006-2007•Progress data
2008-2009•Districts in 2008-2009 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample•February 2009 APR reported all children who exited in 2007-2008•Progress data
6
Data Timeline
2009-2010 •Districts in 2009-2010 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample •February 2010 APR will report all children who exited in 2008-2009 cycle year•Baseline Data
2010 - 2011•Districts in 2010 – 2011 Self-Assessment Cycle will join sample•February 2011 APR will report all children who exited in 2009-2010 cycle year compared to targets for 2009-10•Have option to adjust targets with justification•DPI will publicly report LEA results on Special Education District Profile
2011 - 2012 •February 2012 APR will report all children who exited in 2010-2011 cycle year compared to targets for 2010-11•DPI will publicly report LEA results on Special Education District Profile
7
Wisconsin’s “Birth to 6” Child Outcome System
• Part B sampling strategy (Part C – Census)• Any child with an initial IEP and placement
date that falls between July 1 and June 30 of the district’s self-assessment cycle year makes up a district’s sample cohort.• Report on all children in cohort until they turn 6 or
exit the program• Builds on existing practices• Emphasizes on-going assessment• Uses a team process to share information
Wisconsin’s “Birth to 6” Child Outcome System
8
Using the child outcome summary, team determines the entry rating within 60 days of entry into preschool program for each child who begins services between July 1st and June 30th of the cycle year.
Each child in the sample cohort is followed until they turn six, exit services, or moves out of a district.
It is recommended but not required that the Part C exit rating be used as the Part B entry rating. This data is available on the Program Participation System (PPS).
Child outcome information is reported on the DPI Special Education Web Portal – Child Outcomes database by September 1st following the June 30th close of their entry year and each subsequent year until all of the students in the sample cohort have exited.
9
Three Child Outcomes
Children have positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
Children acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)
Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
10
Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)
7 point rating scale Team summarizes multiple data
sources (NOT an assessment) Rating the status of child’s functioning
at entry and again at exit Comparing child’s functioning to what
is expected at his/her age
11
Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Child Outcome Summary Form (1 of 3) Date Form Completed: Entry Rating or Exit Rating (Check One) Child Information Name:
Date of Birth:
Entry Date:
Exit Date:
Persons involved in summary rating decisions:
Name Role Name Role
Identify supporting evidence for thinking about the child’s functioning in the three outcome areas and closely related areas (as indicated by assessments and observations from individuals in close contact with the child).
Child Outcome Area Dates Sources of information Summary of Relevant Evidence I. POSITIVE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL SKILLS
(Including social relationships) Relating with adults Relating with other children Following rules related to groups
or interacting with others (if older than 18 months)
II. ACQUIRING AND USING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (Including communication, language and early literacy)
Thinking, reasoning, remembering, & problem solving
Understanding symbols Understanding the physical &
social worlds
III. TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTIONS TO MEET NEEDS
Taking care of basic needs (e.g., showing hunger, dressing, feeding, toileting)
Contributing to own health & safety (e.g., follows rules, assists with hand washing, avoids inedible objects)
Getting from place to place (mobility) and using tools (e.g., forks, pencils, strings attached to objects)
12
The two COSF questions
a. To what extent does this child show age-appropriate functioning, across a variety of settings and situations, on this outcome? (Rating: 1-7)
b. Has the child shown any new skills or behaviors related to [this outcome] since the last outcomes summary? (Yes-No)
13
14
OSEP Reporting Categories
Percentage of children who: a. Did not improve functioningb. 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
15
Must have 2 data points to calculate progress
Calculations are done at the state level using an analytic calculator developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO)
Entry Exit Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3
ID Program Date Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Date Outcome 1 Progress Outcome 2 Progress Outcome 3 Progress OSEP Category OSEP Category OSEP Category
###### 7 7 7 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y e e e
###### 2 3 2 ###### 3 Y 3 Y 4 Y c b c
###### 3 3 3 ###### 4 Y 5 Y 5 Y c c c
###### 5 4 5 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y d d d
###### 6 4 7 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y e d e
###### 6 5 7 ###### 5 Y 4 Y 6 y b b e
The “a” category
16
a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning Children who acquired no new skills or regressed
during their time in the program Didn’t gain or use even one new skill Children with degenerative conditions/ significant
disabilities
17
Entry Exit
18
Entry Exit
The “b” category
19
b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers Children who acquired new skills but continued to
grow at the same rate throughout their time in the program
Gained and used new skills but did not increase their rate of growth or change their growth trajectories while in services
20
Entry Exit
21
Entry Exit
The “c” category
22
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it Children who acquired new skills but accelerated their
rate of growth during their time in the program Made progress toward catching up with same aged
peers but were still functioning below age expectations when they left the program
Changed their growth trajectories --“narrowed the gap”
23
Entry Exit
The “d” category
24
d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
Children who were functioning below age expectations when they entered the program but were functioning at age expectations when they left
Started out below age expectations, but caught up while in services
25
Entry Exit
The “e” category
26
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Children who were functioning at age expectations
when they entered the program and were functioning at age expectations when they left
Entered the program at age expectations and were still up with age expectations at exit
27
Entry Exit
28
Entry Exit
29
A B C D E
2006-2007 (n=30) 7 7 23 33 30
2007-2008 (n=450) 3 13 19 29 36
2008-2009 (n=762) 2 10 17 30 40
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #1 Positive Social-Emotional Skills
Perc
en
tage
30
A B C D E
2006-2007 (n=30) 7 13 30 23 27
2007-2008 (n=450) 2 16 26 36 20
2008-2009 (n=762) 1 14 23 45 18
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #2 – Acquiring & Using Knowledge &
Skills
Perc
en
tage
31
A B C D E
2006-2007 (n=30) 3 3 17 17 60
2007-2008 (n=450) 2 10 12 22 54
2008-2009 (n=762) 1 7 11 27 55
5
15
25
35
45
55
Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #3 – Takes Appropriate Action to Meet
Needs
Perc
nta
ge
The Summary Statements32
Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
33
Summary Statement #1
Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
In other words… How many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program?
Percent of the children who made greater than expected gains, made substantial increases in their rates of growth, i.e. changed their growth trajectories.
Formulac+da+b+c+d
34
Summary Statement #2
The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
In other words… How many children were functioning within the bounds of age expectations when they left the program?
Percent of the children who were functioning at age expectations in this outcome area when they exited the program, including those who:•started out behind and caught up 9”d”)•Entered and exited at age level (“e”)
Formulad+ea+b+c+d+e
Where do the #s come from? – Summary Statement Calculator
35
36
Wisconsin’s Data
Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3
2006-2007 81 72.7 83.3
2007-2008 75 77.3 74.4
2008-2009 79.6 81.9 83.2
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
Summary Statement #1
Perc
enta
ges
37
Wisconsin’s Data
Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3
2006-2007 63.3 50 76.7
2007-2008 64.7 55.6 75.8
2008-2009 70.3 62.5 81.4
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
Summary Statement #2
Perc
enta
ge
38
What Does This Mean for Outcome #1 – Positive Social-Emotional Skills?
1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 79.6% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
2. 70.3% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
39
What Does This Mean for Outcome #2 – Acquisition & Use of Knowledge & Skills?
1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 81.9% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
2. 62.5% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
40
What Does This Mean for Outcome #3 – Use Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs?
1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 83.2% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
2. 81.4% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
41
2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 2009-2010 (n=203)
Outcome #1 81 75 79.6 70.8
Outcome #2 72.7 77.3 81.9 79.8
Outcome #3 83.3 74.4 83.2 82.7
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
Part B Summary Statement #1 Comparison by Year
Perc
en
tage
42
2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 2009-2010 (n=203)
Outcome #1 63.3 64.7 70.3 62.1
Outcome #2 50 55.6 62.5 57.6
Outcome #3 76.7 75.8 81.4 80.3
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
Part B Summary Statement #2 Comparison by Year
Perc
en
tage
43
Target Setting Considerations
Target for 2009-2010 may be lower than, equal to, or higher than the baseline
Target for 2010-2011 must be higher than the baseline
44
Lower Target First Year Stay the Same First Year
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 79.6 75 80.6
7.B. 81.9 80 82.9
7.C. 83.2 79 84.2
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 79.6 79.6 80.6
7.B. 81.9 81.9 82.9
7.C. 83.2 83.2 84.2
Three Options to Consider – Summary Statement #1
Higher Target First Year
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 79.6 80.6 81.6
7.B. 81.9 82.9 83.9
7.C. 83.2 84.2 85.2
45
Lower Target First Year Stay the Same First Year
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 70.3 66.4 71.3
7.B. 62.5 58.5 63.5
7.C. 81.4 77.4 82.4
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 70.3 70.3 71.3
7.B. 62.5 62.5 63.5
7.C. 81.4 81.4 82.4
Three Options to Consider – Summary Statement #2
Higher Target First Year
2008-09(Baseline)
2009-10Target
2010-11Target
7.A. 70.3 71.3 72.3
7.B. 62.5 63.5 64.5
7.C. 81.4 82.4 83.4
46
Improvement Activities Impacting Outcomes
ImmediateData quality
Enhanced use of Child Outcomes Fidelity Self Assessment
Professional development Web-based training modules including video of team
decision making processFocused data-driven technical assistanceVery Near FutureIncreased data analysisConnecting the data to practices (FRII)
Recommended