Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Early Childhood Special Education
Connecticut State Department of EducationEarly Childhood Special Education
Maria Synodi
2
What is the primary purpose of Connecticut’s outcome evaluation?
To identify and guide continuous improvement efforts that demonstrate positive outcomes for children who
receive programs and services through the state’s 619 program.
3
Primary purpose of Connecticut’s outcome evaluation resulted from ….?
the state’s self-assessment, continuous improvement – intended to guide & target improvement efforts and measure results
the need, as identified by stakeholders, to identify positive ‘results’ of 619 program for eligible children ages 3-5
the need to align with other state efforts for children without disabilities – important not to do something separate
the need to utilize existing data systems and resources for measurement, maximize resources (time, money, resources)
the need to coordinate with the Part C & B System
4
What is the impetus for the state’s outcome evaluation?
Self-assessment, continuous improvement process GPRA PART Heightened focus and emphasis on standards, accountability,
results Ensuring preschool-age children with disabilities (3-5) were
included in SEA efforts for 6-21, integrated with Part C (0-3) Ensuring preschool-age children with disabilities were
included in state outcome and accountability efforts for preschool-age children without disabilities – One integrated effort for ‘all’ children
5
What is the focus and scope of the state’s outcome evaluation?
Specifically, children ages 3-, 4-, and 5-years of age receiving special education and related services
--------------------------------------------------------Provides data for children who received services in the
state’s Part C Program - provides the ability to report outcome information for 619 and the 619
sub-group of children who received early intervention
6
What did the state want to be able to say about children?
Identify ‘results’ of children receiving 619 services, program Children with disabilities were entering kindergarten with
skills and competencies that provided the opportunity for participation in a regular education environment in the general education curriculum
Children with disabilities exited special education by kindergarten
Children needed less frequency, intensity of special education services and supports by kindergarten
Children spent greater amounts of time in ‘regular education’ Children performed on statewide assessments at Grade 3
7
What did the state want to be able to say about children and why?
Answer policy questions based upon data Should preschool-age children with disabilities be
retained in kindergarten because they are ‘not ready’?
Make policy and programmatic decisions based upon data Part C and 619 policy question – Do all children exiting
Part C need special education at some point during the preschool years and/or are identified in kindergarten?
619 question – Is suspension, expulsion of a 3-, 4-, 5-year-old ever appropriate?
8
What did the state want to be able to say about children?
Important to Note: State was not evaluating individual children, no intention on
a statewide level to measure, collect data on child progress State was evaluating impact, effect of 619 services and/or
programs on the children served (macro level) Outcomes were developed for a ‘class’ (e.g., 619) rather than
for individual children and families Outcomes were evaluating and measuring the effects of the
system of services rather than individual children & families Outcomes and evaluation reporting developed reflected (a)
short-term measurements & (b) provision for long-term measurements
9
How and why were certain questions, statements chosen?
Factors In Choosing Statements Included: GPRA, State self-assessment, continuous improvement efforts Answering the question – As a result of 619, what do we want
the result to be for children? – Stakeholder feedback Results of data analysis for identification of priorities Research, literature Relied on available data collection systems, current or
modified infrastructure for data collection and analysis Evaluation and integration of other state efforts on standards,
benchmarks, accountability in early childhood, pragmatically and philosophically (do for ‘all’ children and don’t reinvent the wheel)
10
What ‘outcome’ areas were included in the state’s evaluation?
One ‘kindergarten outcome’
Children with disabilities will enter kindergarten at age 5 prepared for success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------One ‘transition outcome’
Families and children are able to access appropriate educational and community supports and
services when children leave the Birth to Three System
11
Kindergarten Outcome
School Readiness
Children with disabilities will enter kindergarten at age 5 prepared for success.
12
Children with disabilities will enter kindergarten at age 5 prepared for success
All eligible 3- and 4-year-old children with disabilities will have access to:
(1) a high-quality preschool experience reflecting the general education curriculum
(2) A school readiness experience that will prepare them for school and
(3) Will enter kindergarten at age 5, the same age as their typical peers.
13
Three K Indicators - Evidence of Change
Increase the percent of eligible preschool children with disabilities, 3- and 4-years of age who participate in regular education kindergarten at age 5
Increase the percent of eligible preschool children with disabilities, 3- and 4-years of age, who receive their special education and related services in settings that are least restrictive
Decrease the number of preschool and kindergarten children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from school
14
Children with disabilities will enter kindergarten at age 5 prepared for success
Evidence of Change
Increase the percent of eligible children with disabilities 3- and 4- years of age, who participate in regular education kindergarten at age 5.
Definition
The total number of eligible 3- and 4-year-old children with disabilities who at age 5 are in and participate in a regular education kindergarten placement.
15
Increase the percent of eligible preschool children with disabilities, 3 and 4-years of age, who participate in
regular education kindergarten at age 5
During the 2002-03 school year there were a total of 2,925 eligible students, 5 years of age, with disabilities.
Of that, 2,262, or 77.3% were placed in a regular education kindergarten
575 children, or 19.7% of 5 year old children with disabilities were placed in preschool
19.7%
77.3%
3.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Pre-K K 1st
Fig. 7.1.a 5-year-old SWD by Grade (2002-03)
16
Increase the percent of eligible preschool children with disabilities, 3 and 4-years of age, who participate in regular
education kindergarten at age 5Fig. 7.1.b Percent of 5-year-old SWD's in
Regular Education Kindergarten
76.8%
73.1%
80.7%
75.8%77.3%
66%
70%
74%
78%
82%
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03
n = 3028 n = 2945 n = 2793 n = 2853 n = 2925
(n = total number of 5-year-old SWD in each school year)
Five years of data identifies a fluctuation in the utilization of kindergarten settings for eligible 5-year-old students with disabilities.
In 2000-01, more eligible 5-year-olds were in kindergarten grade placements commensurate with their peers although 2002-03 shows and increase from the previous year.
17
Transition Outcome
Transition From EI to 619
Families and children are able to access appropriate educational and community
supports and services when children leave the Birth to Three System
18
Three Transition Indicators - Evidence of Change
Increase the percent of eligible preschool children with disabilities who exited from B-3 and received a FAPE at 3
Increase the percent of eligible 3-year-old children with disabilities who receive their special education and related services in inclusive settings
Increase the percent of eligible 3-year-old children with disabilities who receive their special education and related services in settings with non-disabled peers
19
FAPE at Age 3
Evidence of Change
Increase the percent of eligible students with
disabilities, who transitioned from Birth-
3 at age 3 and who received a FAPE by their 3rd birthday.
Indicator Definition
The total number of students in the Birth-3 System, who exited at age 3 and were found
eligible for Special Education, who had
their IEP implemented no later than their 3rd
birthday.
20
FAPE at Age 3 - Status
Of the 1,591 students, Birth to Three formally referred 646 (40.6%) to special education and convened a transition meeting for these children at least 90 days prior to the child’s third birthday. Nearly seventy-six percent (490) of the 646 children received FAPE at three, this includes 3 of the 9 students who had already exited by the December 2002 data collection.
Fig. 5.1 Percent of students who exited Birth to Three and received FAPE at Age Three (2002-03)
No24.1%
Yes75.9%
21
What methods were used to conduct evaluation, measurement information?
Statewide data collection system for special education, December 1st reporting (primary)
Part C data provided to the SEA Program review, monitoring information collected Parent interviews, survey results Information reported annually to the public and identification
of next steps Follow-up at the statewide level and at the school district
level Setting targets and re-evaluating strategies and activities
22
What were the major findings, results of the evaluation?
Most significant findings came from data analysis conducted to identify status of 619, what is the state-of-the-state?
Identified need to correct data, data definitions, validate data Identified that data not always reflective of what is occurring
in the state, in school districts or with individual children Allowed the SEA to target policies and practices impacting
eligible children ages 3-5 Provided a data profile that schools could learn from in
changing their own practices Created opportunity for courageous conversations and
change
23
Did the availability of resources pose challenges?
Multiple resource challenges … data systems, resources for data analysis, report writing, follow-up
Funding, personnel, federal & state fiscal crisis Data system capacity for new data elements Resources to capture and validate data through other
than statewide data collection Dueling political footballs – do more with less Training, technical assistance, professional
development
24
What important lessons were learned about the approach and methods used?
Challenges in merging Part C data Challenges in 619 LRE data Challenges in reliability, validating data Differences between data and actual school
district implementation of promising practices, meeting individual child needs
Challenges in coordinating with other state early childhood activities, initiatives measuring results
25
What would you recommend to others who want to report outcome data?
Create one ‘results’ system that has meaning and can help identify effects of positive change
Utilize resources well Critical to work between C and B Programs Critical to work within early care and education
activities
26
Using Data To Monitor Progress
Compare data against statewide average Compare data to like districts Identify triggers – cut off point Follow-up with identified school districts
27
THE END
Questions?
28
IDEA, Part B, Section 619Preschool Special Education
Contact InformationMaria Synodi
Program ManagerPreschool Special Education
State Department of Education25 Industrial Park Road
Middletown, Connecticut 06457(860) 807-2054
