1. Idaho’s Early Childhood Outcomes System (Idaho ECOS)
Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes
Idaho Infant Toddler Program
Idaho Early Childhood Special Education Program
Welcome
Introduce speakers
MaryBeth Wells
Carolee Eslinger
Robin Carter
Carrie Mori
Mary Jones
This training is about the new federal requirements for reporting progress and outcomes of young children with IFSP’s and IEPs:
What they are
What they mean for Idaho
What they mean for early childhood programs and school districts
Our system to meet the federal OSEP reporting requirements
Many people worked on committees in developing this system and drafting materials–Acknowledge/thank local people
System (and presentation!) have been on the “fast track” still evolving, will be fine-tuned over next few months.

2. Agenda Measuring Child Outcomes: Why, What, When, Where, Who & How
Review Child Outcome Summary Form, Tools & Resources
Practice Exercises
First -background information about the federal requirements, and how we plan to meet them.
Second- specific information about the local district and program level.
Toward the end of this session there will be an opportunity to think about what needs to be done in your own program to get this process going.
Questions about “how this applies to us.”
We will probably get to these later in the workshop,
Note them on 3-5 cards. Will have Q&A this afternoon

3. Federal Accountability and Early Childhood Outcomes
U.S. Congress
Office of Budget and Management
U.S. Department of Education - Office of Special Education Programs
State Education Agencies and State Part C Agencies
Local Education Agencies and
Early Intervention Programs
Why we need to measure and record Outcomes
Reauthorized the 2004 IDEA which includes requirements for annual reports to congress about Part C early intervention services and special education
U.S. Congress
Requires all federal programs to be accountable through reporting outcomes data concerning the effectiveness of programs . (Program Assessment Rating Tool) PART for Part C and 619 scored as “Results not demonstrated”– No proof of results available.
Office of Budget and Management
Required by Congress and the new 2004 IDEA to hold states accountable for services through the development of a six year State Performance Plan (SPP) and submission of Annual Performance Reports (APR), including data on early child outcomes
U.S. Department of Education - Office of Special Education Programs
Early intervention agencies are required to collect data about early child outcomes and other Part C services
State Part C & B Agencies
Lead agencies for these services (SDE and DHW) required to collect data about early childhood special education outcomes and other Part B services
State Education Agencies
Local Education Agencies
Provide direct services and gather data on outcomes.
We are all in it togehter
For the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), this means new responsibilities for showing that Special Education, including Early Childhood Special Education, makes a difference for children.
Federal dollars to OSEP are increasingly being tied to its ability to show that it makes a difference. This in turn affects the funding that is available to states.
There has been an Annual Performance Report (APR) for a long time. Reporting child outcomes as a part of this report is relatively new.
At the elementary and secondary levels, outcomes of students with IEPs are being addressed by including these students in the overall state assessment systems. At the early childhood level, we have thus far gotten off easy because we do not have a state assessment system at this level.
Now, however, early childhood is specifically included in OSEP’s accountability system, and specific outcomes for young children are now required at the federal level.

4. Training Objectives Participants will be able to :
Demonstrate the ability to accurately identify, record, and report a child’s outcome data using the Idaho Child Outcome Summary Form (Idaho COSF)
Following this slide—play movie trailer
Activity for Icebreaker—Introduce and each person at the table share a success story about a child or family where there was a positive change (outcome) and why you think that happened and whether there is a current way for that “good news” to be shared.

5. Idaho’s goal Document our program’s impact for children
with IFSPs or IEPs
Show that over time children with IFSPs/IEPs are making progress toward the stated performance objectives
Like a report card for our programs

6. Measuring outcomes make sense for Idaho
Support DEC/NAEYC best practice guidelines
Examine and refine current assessment practices
Demonstrate value of
Early Intervention (Part C),
Early Childhood Special Ed (Part B) programs
Meet Federal Reporting Requirements
Demonstrates value of EI and 619 Programs to families, partner agencies, and the public

7. What are the OSEP’s Early Childhood Outcomes?
Outcomes focus on measuring SYSTEM results – not on individual children (although we use their data to obtain the results)
Developed through a National process
Many stakeholders over 12 months
Strong recommendation for functional outcomes- (not all inclusive – doesn’t measure child well-being, just 3 critical components of it)

8. OSEP’s outcomes focus on measuring the results of our service system
not about measuring receipt of service
or satisfaction with services
Measures what happened as a result of services
Drum roll please…..

9. OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes
Children have positive social-emotional skills (including positive social relationships)
Children acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language /communication)
Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

10. OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes
Children have positive social-emotional skills (including positive social relationships)
Such as: responding to others, expressing emotions, turn-taking, using appropriate social greetings,
play skills or having friendships with same-age peers, etc.

11. OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes
2. Children acquire and use knowledge and skills
(including early language /communication)
Such as: expressing thoughts and ideas, listening to and enjoying stories and books, or learning new ways to do things, etc.

12. OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes
3. Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
Such as getting from place to place, using tools like forks or crayon, and feeding or dressing, etc.
National process
Many stakeholders over 12 months

13. The Child Outcome Areas…
Represent critical functional outcomes necessary in every day activities and routines
Not domains based – not trying to separate child development into discrete areas (communication, gross motor, etc.)
Emphasize how the child is able to integrate across domains to carry out complex meaningful behaviors
Most developmental assessment tools are domains based
This presents a challenge in gathering data on functional outcomes.
New COSF form developed to assist with this issue.

14. Outcomes are Functional
Meaningful to the child in the context of everyday living
Integrated series of behaviors or skills that allow the child to achieve the outcomes.
Not
a single behavior
the sum of a series of discrete behaviors
Functional refers to things that are meaningful to the child in the context of everyday living.
Refer to an integrated series of behaviors or skills that allow the child to achieve the outcomes.
They are not
a single behavior, nor are they
the sum of a series of discrete behaviors

15. Functional Outcomes What does a child typically do?
Actual performance across settings and situations
How child uses his/her skills to accomplish tasks
Not the child’s capacity to function under ideal circumstances

16. So…how do we demonstrate that our programs produce good outcomes for children?…

17. Demonstrate that…
Children have positive outcomes given who they are, their delays, disabilities, functioning when they entered, etc.
Outcomes are better than they would have been without the program

18. Complicating Issues
Many children progress with no intervention (maturing with age)
Children with disabilities’ show diverse progress and under the best of programs, will experience different outcomes
These are challenges in documenting the impact we have on children’s development

19. Solution
Document the number of children for whom the program has changed their developmental trajectories

20. Thinking about how children are doing with regard to each outcome.
Movement away from age-expected
Age-expected skills & behavior
Graphic of different levels of competency in age-expected skills and behaviors. Some children are closer to age norms, some farther away. Our challenge is to assist children to move toward center (age norm) and measure how many do.
Movement toward age-expected

21. OSEP Indicators – categories of progress
a. % of children who maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers
b. % of children who reach functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers
c. % of children who improved functioning but did not achieve functioning comparable to same-age peers
d. % of children who did not improve functioning.
Explain OSEP plans to go from three indicators that combined a and b to four indicators of progress.
Indicator ratings will be done at the state agency level using the ratings submitted by the programs to the state.

22. OSEP Indicators & Measurement Categories
5 year old level
Group a: maintained or reached typical
This example represents 3 children who all enter at chronological age 3
The represents their developmental age. This shows categories a and b.
= children who
“closed the gap”
2 year old level
Entry
Exit

23. Indicators & Measurement Categories
5 year old level
Group b: made progress but…
= children who made progress toward “closing the gap”
2 year old level
Entry
Exit

24. Indicators & Measurement Categories
5 year old level
2 year old level
Group c: did not make progress
Exit
Entry

25. Indicators & Measurement Categories
Group a: maintained or reached typical
5 year old level
Group b: made progress but..
Group c: did not make progress
2 year old level
Enry
Exit

26. Obtain and compare a child’s assessment data
How do we document change in developmental trajectories while in services ?
Obtain and compare a child’s assessment data
at program
entry and exit.

27. Quality Assessment 
Quality Service
Better Outcomes
Robin takes over

28. “Much of developmental psychology (early childhood testing) as it now exists is the science of the strange behavior of children with strange adults in strange settings for the briefest possible periods of time.”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
There is great concern regarding the use of school age and adult models of assessment and curriculum on young children.
This quote says it all! Read quote
We need to keep in perspective what the issues are with conventional testing and be sure we use the type of assessment that gives us the information we want – conventional tests are insensitive to changes in development and behaviors, decontextualized, nonfunctional, inequitable, not aligned to program curriculum, require very standardized procedures
We have to think about how inappropriate conventional testing is for our children – abandons purpose of early childhood education, and no research base for using conventional tests with young children.
This is why there is such a big push at the school age level for using more curriculum based measurement and response to intervention (contextualized information) for identification of learning disability because they are more accurate and produces information that are directly relevant to intervention efforts. If we want to help a child communicate with his peers, why not collect assessment information in that context so we know what the specific challenges and needed skills are within the context?

29. What is assessment?
“Early childhood assessment is flexible, collaborative decision-making process in which teams of parents and professionals repeatedly revise their judgments and reach consensus about the changing developmental, educational, medical, and mental health services needs of young children and their families.”
Bagnato and Neisworth, 1991
Quoted in DEC Recommended Practices, 2005
Read the slide and comment on some of the big ideas :
Collaborative, flexible, teams of parents and professionals, reaching consensus, measuring the changing needs of child and what needs the family has to meet their child’s needs.

30. DEC Recommended Practices for Assessment
Involves multiple sources (e.g., families, professional team members, service providers, caregivers)
Involves multiple measures (e.g., observations, criterion-curriculum-based instruments, interviews, curriculum-compatible norm-referenced scales, informed clinical opinion, work samples)
Some key recommended practices outlined in ”DEC Recommended Practices in Early Intervention/early Childhood Special Education”, S. Sandal, M. McLean, B. Smith2000 (Published DEC, Sopris West). There are 46 recommended practices in assessment – these are key summary points in support of how outcomes will be measured.

31. What information is gathered?
Norm-referenced, criterion-referenced or curriculum-based assessments
Multiple
sources of data
are used to rate
a child’s functioning
There are three essential sources of data that are used to rate a child’s functioning and provide child outcome information
Norm-referenced, criterion-referenced or curriculum-based assessments
Informed Professional Judgment (which includes observation)
Parent Input
We will briefly discuss each of them
Informed Professional Judgment &
Observation
Parent Input

32. Which anchor assessment tools will we use in Idaho?
The following tools have been adopted for completing the outcome rating scale.
BDI – II (Battelle)
HELP (Hawaii)
Creative Curriculum
AEPS
Carolina
OUNCE
Work Sampling
High Scope (COR)
Brigance
Bayley III (ITP program only)
We noted earlier that one of the advantages of the Idaho approach is that it allows for a wide range of sources and types of information.
Based on input nationally and from survey of what are being used in the state, the following tools have been identified as options for the primary or anchor tools adequate for measuring outcomes. It is essential that technically-adequate, age-linked assessments be among the data gathering approaches used, and adequately cover the 3 Child Outcome Areas. BUT they will NOT be the only information used.
We also want to make sure that the particular assessments being used are grounded in research - that is, that they are technically adequate. So we have developed a list of technically-adequate assessments that we require people to use as a basis for their ratings.
Note that the assessments do NOT all have to be standardized so long as they are age-linked and technically adequate.
There are also other, more domain-specific or specialized assessments such as those used by therapists or psychologists - these also are relevant and will be supporting information to these anchor assessments along with the other observational and interview data.
So how do these fit the three outcomes… next slide

33. Information to gather…
Informed professional judgment
Teachers, paraprofessionals, related service providers
Anecdotal records, documented observations and data, progress reports, work samples, portfolios
Parental input
Best practice
Information from caregivers provide critical information to determine how child is doing across a variety of settings
In addition to gathering information from different types of assessment tools, the other two critical data sources are
Informed professional judgment
Requires that a variety of individuals who are a part of the child’s life and work with him or her provide information using a variety of sources (Anecdotal records, documented observations and data, progress reports, work samples, portfolios) that represent how the child functions in everyday activities and routines.
Observations during typical routines and activities is essential.
As a part of the IFSP/IEP process, teams can use their progress reporting will be valuable data. As we increase our focus on measuring functional child outcomes, we may need to incorporate some different questions.
Some questions that might be asked to service providers like an OT might be:
Do you think Johnny uses appropriate actions, skills or behaviors to meet his typical routine needs (eating with peers at snack time, moving around the room during play time) that are comparable to other children his age – if so, what are some examples?
Do you think his functioning has improved while you have worked with him, if so, how, what are some examples?
If he has improved, do you think his performance in this area is getting closer to children his age since the first time you started working with him?
Parent input is critical
Parents and other family caregivers are the key source of information for developing an IFSP or IEP that reflects their priorities and concerns and the current status of the child.
Consistent with best practice and Impossible to determine how child is doing across a variety of settings without information from caregivers
Gathering information about children from parents concerning early child outcomes is an important and required component of the child outcome system.
This process should be invisible to parents. It should be infused into the information gathering completed as part of the assessment, and evaluation, and development a child’s IFSP/IEP. ASKing discrete questions about their child relative to the child outcomes should become a routine part of preparing for the IFSP or IEP. While some states are requiring that families directly participate in completing a COSF form regarding their child’s developmental status in each of three outcomes, Idaho is not.
,Parents do need to know that child outcome information is being collected as part of required program accountability. A parent brochure entitled, How Do We Know Early Intervention Services and Early Childhood Special Education Services Help Infants, Toddlers, preschoolers and Families? (See handout)

34. So…our challenge
How do we take what we know about assessment and apply it to measuring the 3 outcomes…
…when there is no one assessment tool that assesses all 3 outcomes directly.
We need to be able to use multiple sources and test scores need to be apart of a broader assessment (collection od infomration) that includes, observation, interviews, etc.

35. And through our assessment lens…
Each child is a collection of numerous behaviors, skills, traits, capabilities, interests, strengths, and needs
What an individual “tunes into” depends on his/her orientation
Individual professional training has provided an “organizing framework” for how one sees the child
With our assessment lens, we must consider;
Review items on slide
Each child may show their skills in a unique ways
Parents and providers will focus on different skills and behaviors, depending on what is important to them, their expertise, training, etc.

36. How do assessment tools fit with the three Child Outcome Areas?
CROSSWALKS CAN HELP!
A national center, the ECO Center is crosswalking the most common assessments to the 3 child outcomes
Crosswalks give a visual indication of how items on an assessment tool covers the 3 outcomes
Crosswalks show which areas/subareas map to which outcome
States were required to use tools that were aligned to the outcomes, so a national center ECO Center, has done major alignment studies of the most common assessments to the 3 child outcomes. Idaho chose to use their work. They will continue to crosswalk more tools and those will then be available for our use.
Crosswalks give a visual indication of how items on an assessment tool covers the 3 outcomes
Crosswalks show which areas/subareas map to which outcome
There is not a 1-1 match in all cases; some items can fit in more than one place. The intent is that the ratings be based on a global understanding of the child in that area, so considering them in more than one area makes sense.
Not all items or areas on a particular assessment contribute information to an outcome area . Or there may be other assessments or sources that can contribute better information. No one assessment has all of the information
The crosswalks include curriculum-based assessments. We want to encourage the use of classroom assessments for doing the ratings because they are more reflective of how the child uses knowledge and skills in everyday environments. Several examples of crosswalks that have been developed to tie different broad-based assessments to the three Child Outcome Areas.

37. Sample Crosswalk
Handout the sample crosswalk and discuss the specifics of the one that is shared.
BREAK!?!

38. What will the process look like in Idaho?....
Parents will be well informed and contribute information to the process
An anchor assessment will be completed to assess the child in the three outcome areas
Information will be collected, compiled and documented using anchor assessments, parent information, and informed professional observation and judgment.
A rating decision regarding a child’s level of functioning will be made by the team utilizing all the information gathered
In summary, how the process will look
A team will be compiled of knowledgeable individuals
It helps greatly if members of the team have good knowledge of typical child development, so that the child can be thought about within the context of typical development. There is considerable flexibility in “who” and “how” the team process will be accomplished. Each district and/or local program will make this decision.
2) Programs will determine how they will be informing and involving parents in the process, which will align with existing processes for evaluations and IEP/IFSP development.
3) Procedures for collecting assessment data in adherence with best practice will be used.
4)The anchor assessment will be completed within a designated amount of time, which may have already been done as a part of the eligibility determination. For children transferring from Part C to Part B, districts are encouraged to use assessment data and their exit data

39. The Specifics: Who, What, and When

40. Target Population for Entry (Part C)
Entry baseline data is required for:
all children entering services on or after July 1, 2006 will have COSF completed within 45 days of IFSP development.
except premature infants less than 6 months adjusted age
Includes children receiving only a single related-service (i.e. Speech only or OT only)
Completion of the Child Outcome Summary Form is based on the evaluation information and ongoing assessment from primary therapists, parents, and other team members. The child’s primary therapist is responsible for completion of the COSF. The service coordinator assures the collection of needed information from team members and assures the COSF data is submitted to the Data Tot system in a timely manner. **

41. Target Population for Exit (Part C)
Exit data is required for all children in services for at least 6-months as of January 1, 2007.
Unanticipated exits– use best information available to complete form following exit.
Assessment (with anchor tool) recommended for all exiting children
If necessary, those receiving only one related-service can use ASQ and ASQ-SE in lieu of full developmental evaluation as one data source in determining exit outcome rating
When exiting child is receiving only a single related service, it is recommended that a comprehensive developmental evaluation be completed prior to exit/transition. In some circumstances, it may be allowable to acquire outcome information using the ASQ and ASQ-SE as a data source for outcome information rather than using a listed anchor assessment tool.

42. Time Lines at Exit (Part C)
COSF completed near exit or transition meeting with Part B
Anchor assessment completed between 2.6 IFSP meeting and child’s 3rd birthday
Outcome data is due to Data-Tot system (and if appropriate, Part B system):
no later than 30 days after child’s exit from Part C, or
no later than 30 days after child’s 3rd birthday (whichever comes first).
Additional evaluation isn’t needed if curriculum–based assessment is routinely used and current.
Stress that data is due to data-tot at exit or 3rd b-day, whichever comes first

43. Additional information about child indicators (Part C)
Child must be in program at least 6 months for EXIT data to be counted
Data must be collected near entry and near exit
Collection of Entry data begins:
for ITP July 1, 2006
for SDE September 1, 2006

44. Roles and Responsibilities (Part C)
Child information compiled from multiple sources – Service Coordinator
Scoring/completion of COS Form – Primary Therapist or Multi-disciplinary Team
Outcome Ratings transferred to Data-Tot Entry form – Service Coordinator
Data entered into Data-Tot – Data Entry operator
The child’s primary therapist is responsible for completion of the COSF. The service coordinator assures the collection of needed information from team members and assures the COSF data is submitted to the Data Tot system in a timely manner.

45. Difference of Opinion? (Part C)
If therapists or other team members can not agree on a rating…
Review data at MDT, seek consensus
If no resolution, provide Child Team supervisor with all data
Child Team Supervisor will assign final rating
Note different perspectives on form
If there is disagreement about a child’s COSF rating among therapists, review the information at the MDT meeting. If consensus can not be reached within the MDT, the opinions and data sources of all providers/team members will be documented by the service coordinator. The information will be provided to the Child Team supervisor for the final rating on the child outcome entry summary form.

46. Summary Steps in COS Process (Part C)
Gather information from multiple sources (complete anchor assessment if necessary)
Synthesize data and complete COS Form
Update Data-Tot enrollment form and submit for entry
Share data with Part B if appropriate

47. Next section- Part B data

48. Data Collection Process for Part B
Target populations and Entry data
All children enrolled in early childhood special education on September 1, 2006 or later must have entry data (baseline) collected within 45 calendar days of initial consent for placement.
Children transitioning from Part C -Exit from Part C may be used for Part B entry if an approved anchor tool was administered
Migrant and Seasonal Headstart Children will probably not be included in our sample data because of their shortened school year – June through October.

49. Exit data will be collected Part B
EC Outcome Exit data will be collected within 30 days of the end of the school year (including ESY) for all children who are 5 years old on or before Sept 1st of the current school year (cut-off date for kindergarten entry) no matter if they are staying in a preschool setting or going into kindergarten.
If moves to another preschool, transfer outcome entry data and information with eligibility report and student file.
Exit data should reflect a child’s progress in the early childhood special education program.
If the child is moving from one district to another – A copy of the entry data form should be sent to the receiving district for a reference since they will be required to evaluate progress upon exit when the child leaves the program.
Districts are not required to complete exit data when a child is moving to another district within the state.

50. Exit data will be collected Part B (cont’d)
If determined no longer eligible before 5, exit outcome data is collected on all three outcomes within 30 days of no longer meeting eligibility criteria.
Prior to a move out of state, collect data 30 days prior to leaving the program
If child leaves before 5 without notice and prior to administering the anchor assessment, complete the COSF with the information you have.

51. Roles (Part B)
Preschool teachers have the lead role to gather the necessary information for the COSF, preferably during team meetings.
Related service providers also provide assessment data, observation, etc.

52. Determining the score 1-7 (Part B)
This should be a team decision – by consensus to insure validity and reliability.
Scores may be averaged
If there is disagreement, an administrator should make the final determination after reviewing the COSF.

53. Process (Part B) Gather all assessment information
Complete the COSF – may be incorporated at time of IEP meeting.
Consent is not required for this process.
Enter score 1-7 & (Y or N for exit) in web-based data system

54. Exit Data Collection (Part B)
All children that have been in the program for 6 months or more must have exit data collected.

55. Data reporting to the state (Part B)
A real-time data collection system is being constructed so data can be entered at the convenience of the preschool teacher to avoid lost data.
Data should be entered as soon as possible.

56. The Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF)

57. Child Outcome Summary Form Key Features
Is NOT an Assessment
Is NOT about eligibility determination
Does NOT rate or summarize
Info about services provided to child
Family’s satisfaction with services
Information for planning services for child
Blends diverse data from multiple sources into a consistent, reliable unit of measurement that can be aggregated and tracked over time
Converts Assessment data from multiple team members and tools into
Consistent unit of measurement that can be combined across programs/the state
And can be tracked over time (for individual child and as aggregate data)

58. Child Outcome Summary Form Key Features
Uses diverse information for global view of a child
Compares a child’s functioning to same-aged peers
Documents progress and movement toward typical development
Considers functional abilities across diverse settings (not under ideal circumstances)
Provides information about child’s overall sense of functioning in the three outcome areas

59. The Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF)
Cover sheet
Summary of evidence used to complete ratings
People involved in assigning rating
7-point rating , with an overall rating for each required outcome area
Highest score (7) = outcome achieved at age-expected level
Lowest score (1) = farthest distance from age-expectations
Progress Question (to be completed only at exit)
Get out your handouts COSF- Instructions, and Decision Tree
Ask participants to take a quick look at the sections of the rating scale as you go through the points on the slide above, to familiarize themselves with the scale as a whole.
(READ THROUGH SLIDE ABOVE)
Then come back and walk through the sections in more depth, using the slides that follow. They should follow along in their handouts as you talk about each age.
The entire completed form will be filed in the child’s folder. It will be used by Monitors to determine whether it is being used accurately, and to decide whether additional training and technical assistance are needed.
Reminder: they will see an example of a completed form later in the training.

60. Walk through each section of sheet (refer to Instructions)
Not a separate form for entry and exit although you will complete one form at entry and one at exit
Same form used for exit and entry and for Part B and Part C
Page 1- your worksheet and “justification” of rating
Enter:
Basic info on child
Circle district or region and write name/number
After gathering all assmt data from team members, summarize major sources/data that determined the rating. Can list tool or source 1 time and use for multiple outcomes.
Must always have an “anchor” tool as one data point (from list of assessment tools)
Should list info. from diverse sources including observations, dialogue with parents/caregivers, authentic Assessment information (all the things Marybeth talked about)
If Special considerations exist that impacted the child’s outcome score, note them
List the name/role of people that contributed to determining the outcome rating
Shaded (summary) box at top of form will be completed after rating has been assigned. Useful for quick reference and for data-entry.
Note how family input was obtained

61. Thinking about how children are doing with regard to each outcome.7
Movement away from age-expected
Age-expected skills & behavior
Graphic of different levels of competency in age-expected skills and behaviors. Some children are closer to age norms, some farther away. Our challenge is to assist children to move toward center (age norm) and measure how many do.
Movement toward age-expected

62. Outcome Ratings: A 7-Point Scale
1 - Not Yet
2 - Between emerging and not yet
3 - Emerging
4 - Between somewhat and emerging
5 - Somewhat
6 - Between completely and somewhat
7 -Completely
Walk through the seven ratings . Describe each

63. Take out your Decision Tree. Walk through decision tree
Take out your Decision Tree. Walk through decision tree. Very useful tool in determining the rating. Use of this tool will help with inter-rater reliability. USE IT!

64. Considerations when completing Child Outcome Summary Form
Team’s input is required
Consider role of assistive technology/accommodations (i.e. sign language, wheel chair)
Consider child’s culture and language
Document special considerations that impacted child’s development
Reflect the child’s actual functioning – not what the child is capable of under the ideal or highly unusual circumstances
The first thing in the instructions is a list of the sections of the scale
The process to be used is described as well. It …
Is team-based
Is designed to yield a global, overall picture of the child in a variety of settings and with a variety of people
Includes a table that describes the 7 points of the rating scale (we will look at this in more depth in a moment)
Right after the table is some information on assistive technology and accommodations. These are to be considered within the overall picture - if they are available in the child’s everyday environments, then functioning should be rated with these in mind. If they are NOT readily available, then the rating is based on the child’s functioning with whatever assistance is USUALLY present. The point is to capture the child’s ACTUAL functioning, not what she/he could do given ideal circumstances.
The next slide takes a closer look at the Definitions (back to p. 2 on the Handout).

65. Considerations when completing Child Outcome Summary Form
OSEP reporting requires two data points for each outcome
Near entry (sets baseline)
Near exit (shows progress)
At Exit only, answer question “Has child shown new skills or made progress in outcome area?”
Child CAN make progress without “changing numbers” on the scale

66. Identifying who made progress
Progress = moving up a point on the scale in a subsequent rating, e.g., 3 to 4
Progress= staying at the same rating but having a “yes” for the progress question
Child may progress even if she/he doesn’t change developmental trajectory. A rating of 3- 3 could still have progress.

67. Parental Involvement
Parental consent for evaluations is required, as always.
Parents give input to the COSF through assessment process and IFSP/IEP development.
Parents need not be present when COSF is completed.
Completion of the COSF is NOT an assessment and does not require parental consent.
Discuss/share Parent’s Handout to inform parents about process and purpose.

68. Mary will have audience get out form
Mary will have audience get out form. Walk through what information is required in each section

69. Team Planning
How to make it happen…

70. What Did We Cover? Background and History
OSEP’s Three Functional Outcomes
Assessment Practices
Specific Requirements for Part C & Part B
Tools (Anchor Assessment List, Crosswalks, COSF, Instructions, Decision Tree, Parent Talking points)
Practice
Local Planning

71. Issues? What issues do you foresee? What guidance do you need?
What else?
Ending
Note issues they have already raised during the training and during the discussions above.
Ask for any other issues they may have - “leftover questions”
(Write questions on chart paper, or ask someone to take notes on questions and answers so they can be addressed on the Q&A sheet that is being developed. Note that this information will help ITP and SDE make plans for addressing issues and providing further guidance and technical assistance.)
(ABOUT 3 hours total training time)

72. Good outcome data is a tool to produce good outcomes for children and families.