Upload
ferdinand-mccoy
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Early Childhood and Accountability
OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting
August 2006
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
3
Objectives
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
4
Why the focus on early childhood outcomes?
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
5
Approach
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
6
OSEP’s Key Investments
Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center – Funded Fall 2003– Provides leadership and technical guidance
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)
– Provision of TA and 2 national conferences
7
State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report(APR)
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
8
Critical Events
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
9
OSEP Reporting Requirements: Part C and Preschool Child Outcomes
Percent of children who demonstrate improved:
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
10
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
11
Proposed Change to Reporting Categories
CURRENT
a. % of children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
b. % of children who improve functioning (not in a)
c. % of children who did not improve functioning
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
c. % of children who improve functioning but did not reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
d. % of children who did not improve functioning
12
Additional information about child indicators
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.
13
Analysis of State Performance Plans
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
14
SPP Analysis:Part C Outcomes Data Sources
Data Source # %
Formal assessment instruments
45 80%
Parent report 25 45%
Observation 14 25%
Clinical opinion 10 18%
IFSP goals & objectives 6 11%
Record review 4 7%
Not reported 6 11%
15
SPP Analysis:Preschool Outcomes Data Sources
Data Source # %
Formal assessment instruments
45 80%
Observation 12 21%
Parent report 11 19%
Teacher/provider report 8 14%
IEP goals & objectives 1 2%
Clinical opinion 1 2%
Not reported 10 17%
16
Commonly Reported Assessment Instruments: Part C
Of 28 states who listed specific assessment instruments:– HELP- 15 states– BDI/BDI-2- 13 states– AEPS- 11 states– Creative Curriculum- 6 states– ELAP- 6 states
Not yet determined- 23 states
17
Commonly Reported Assessment Instruments: Preschool
Of 31 states who listed specific assessment instruments:
– 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
18
State approaches to assessments
One assessment selected by state List of assessments developed by state;
programs pick Programs can use whatever they have
been using
19
ECO Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)
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
21
Use of the form
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
22
Current Activities
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
23
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– Single assessment statewide– Small set of approved assessments– Any assessment in use
24
Summary
States are making critical decisions related to assessment right now.
25
Questions for the Panel
26
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?
27
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?
28
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?
29
Families
What is the role of the family in early childhood assessment for accountability purposes?
How do we include families in a meaningful way?
30
Assessment Practices
How can we ensure that accountability has a positive impact on assessment practices in early childhood and promotes authentic assessment?