1. Measuring EC Outcomes DEC Conference Presentation 2010 Cornelia Taylor, ECO Christina Kasprzak, ECO/NECTAC Lisa Backer, MN DOE 1

2. Background 2

3.  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)  Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 3

4. Results not demonstrated: “While the program has met its goal relating to the number of children served, it has not collected information on how well the program is doing to improve the educational and developmental outcomes of preschool children/infants and toddlers served.” Read more at ExpectMore.gov 4 PART Review Findings for Part C and 619

5. 5

6. How Office of Special Education (OSEP) Responded to PART Required states to submit outcome data in their State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) Funded the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center in October 2003 to gather input, conduct research, make recommendations, and assist states 6

7. “…To enable young children to be active and successful participants during the early childhood years and in the future in a variety of settings – in their homes with their families, in child care, in preschool or school programs, and in the community.” (from Early Childhood Outcomes Center, http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pdfs/eco_outcomes_4-13-05.pdf) 7 Goal of early intervention/early childhood special education

8. Part C Family Indicator % of families who report that EI services have helped their family: 1. Know their rights; 2. Effectively communicate their children's needs; and 3. Help their children develop and learn. 8

9. Part C &619 Child Outcomes 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 9

10. OSEP Reporting Categories Percentage of children who: a.Did not improve functioning b.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 3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers 10

11. Summary Statements 1.Of those children who entered the 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. 2.The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. 11

12. Summary Statements 1.Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. c + d___ a + b + c + d 12

13. Summary Statements 2.The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the program. d + e__ a + b + c + d + e 13

14. Connecting the Child Outcomes Data 14 State Approach (COSF ratings /Assessment scores) a-e progress categories summary statements

15. 15 Why Collect Outcomes Data? At the State and Local Levels To respond to federal reporting requirements To have data for program improvement and to respond to federal reporting requirements Purpose

16. At both state and local levels: To document program effectiveness To improve programs Identify strengths and weaknesses Allocate support resources, such as TA 16 Need for Aggregated Data

17. 17 Prof’l Development Preservice Inservice System for Producing Good Child and Family Outcomes Good Federal policies and programs Good State policies and programs High quality services and supports for children 0-5 and their families Good outcomes for children and families Good Local policies and programs Adequate funding Strong Leadership

18. State Approaches 18

19. 19 State Approaches to Measuring Family Outcomes NCSEAM* Family Survey –26 states (46%) ECO Family Outcomes Survey –21 states (38%) State-developed survey –6 states (11%) Combination of above –3 states (5%) *National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring

20. HI GU AS State Approaches to Family Outcomes Measurement* – Part C Program Early Childhood Outcomes Center – August 2010 Legend: ECO Family Outcomes Survey State-developed survey NCSEAM survey MP *This map shows the approaches used to measure the three family outcomes for APR reporting on Indicator C4. Some states used additional tools/ approaches to measure other family variables.

21. 21

22. 22 State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) –41 (73%) Part C Single assessment statewide –7 (13%) Part C Publishers’ online assessment systems –3 (5%) Part C Other approaches –5 (9%) Part C

23. HI GU AS MP State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement – Part C Program Early Childhood Outcomes Center –August 2010 Legend: COSF Publishers’ on-line systems One tool statewide Other

24. 24

25. 25 State Approaches to Measuring Child Outcomes Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) –36 (61%) 619 Single assessment statewide –9 (15%) 619 Publishers’ online assessment systems –6 (10%) 619 Other approaches –7 (12%) 619 *one state preschool program still unknown

26. MH HI GU PW FM AS MP State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement – 619 Programs Early Childhood Outcomes Center – August 2010 Legend: COSF Publishers’ on-line systems One tool statewide Other

27. 27

28. 28 What states are doing now Continuing training and TA on data collection system Enhancing data systems Developing data analysis Identifying and addressing data quality issues Identifying areas for program improvement

29. Keeping our eyes on the prize: High quality services for children and families that will lead to good outcomes.