TASN KITS Fall 2012 Webinar August 31 st 2012 Tiffany Smith Phoebe Rinkel Chelie Nelson 1 Tiffany Smith KSDE ECSE Program Consultant tsmithksdeorg Phoebe Rinkel KITS Part B TA provider ID: 580319
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Understanding and Using Early Childhood ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement
TASN – KITS Fall 2012 Webinar August 31st, 2012Tiffany SmithPhoebe Rinkel Chelie Nelson
1Slide2
Tiffany Smith
KSDE, ECSE Program Consultanttsmith@ksde.org
Phoebe Rinkel
KITS
, Part B, TA providerprinkel@ku.edu Chelie NelsonKITS, Part B, TA providerchelie.nelson@ku.edu
2Slide3
Online Resourceswww.kskits.org
3Slide4
AgendaOverview of the Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data
Kansas Data Drill Down Guide Case StudyExamining Policies and ProceduresExamining APR ReportsExamining ECO Addendum ReportsExamining Data VerificationExamining Child Level Data in OWS4Slide5
Early Childhood Outcomes
OSEP required states to submit outcome data in their State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)2010 – 2011 (Federal Fiscal Year 2009) first year Districts and Part C Networks were compared to State targets5Slide6
The Three Early Childhood Outcomes
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication [and early literacy*])Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs*for 3-5 6Slide7
How Kansas Early Childhood Outcome Data is Reported
7Slide8
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 8Slide9
Entry
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
9Slide10
Entry
Exit
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
10Slide11
Entry
Exit
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
11Slide12
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 12Slide13
Entry
Exit
a
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
13Slide14
Entry
Exit
a
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
14Slide15
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 15Slide16
Entry
Exit
b
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
16Slide17
Entry
Exit
b
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
17Slide18
Entry
Exit
b
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
18Slide19
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 19Slide20
Entry
Exit
c
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
20Slide21
Entry
Exit
c
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
21Slide22
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 22Slide23
Entry
Exit
d
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
23Slide24
States Report Data in these categories
Percentage of children who:Did not improve functioningImproved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peersImproved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach itImproved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peersMaintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers. 24Slide25
Entry
Exit
e
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
25Slide26
Entry
Exit
e
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
26Slide27
Entry
Exit
e
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
27Slide28
Summary Statements For Reporting Progress on Targets
Required Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered or exited 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 Required Summary Statement 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
28Slide29
State ECO Targets FY 2010 (Reported on March 2012)
Outcome 1Outcome 2Outcome 3Summary Statement 1% of children who moved closer to same age peers
Part C = 57.53%Part B = 86.43%
Part C =
61.14%Part B = 86.88%Part C = 66.99%Part B = 86.74%Summary Statement 2 % of children who exited at age levelPart C = 56.33%Part B = 65.66%Part C = 47.44%Part B = 64.10%
Part C = 63.44
%Part B = 77.29%
29
State targets change each year, always be sure to use the most current data for your data drill downSlide30
Purpose
Developed as a tool for local Part B Preschool Special Education Programs To identify components of a high quality system To evaluate their existing Indicator 7 DataTo encourage decision making that will support program improvement efforts30Slide31
5 Sections
Local Policies and Procedures for Data ReportingDistrict APR DataAddendum Report DataData VerificationChild Level Data from OWS31Slide32
Each Section includes
;Information about the data to be examined and where it can be foundQuestions to Guide your Review ProcessAction Planning Form32Slide33
Action Plan
33Slide34
Suggested Use
Local Implementation TeamPart of an ongoing strategic planning processMay be completed in total or in sectionsReassess periodically34Slide35
Many Steps for Ensuring Quality DataGood Data Collection/Training
Good data system and data entryOngoing supervision of implementationFeedback to implementersRefresher trainingReview of COSF RecordsData Analyses for validity checks35Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data ReportingSlide36
Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting
Administrator Quality Rating ChecklistData Entry Quality Rating ChecklistDirect Service Provider Quality Rating Checklist Questions to Guide the Review Process (pg. 4 Data Drill Down Guide)36Slide37
ECO City Example – HO#6
37Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data ReportingSlide38
Section B: Locating and Examining District APR DataSlide39
Section B: ECO City APR Data – HO#7Slide40
Comparing ECO City Data with State Data
40Slide41
Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports
41Slide42
Section C: Examining Addendum Reports for ECO City – HO#8
42Slide43
Section C: Examining ECO City Addendum Reports – HO#9
43Progress and Slippage ReportsSlide44
Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports
44Slide45
Section D: Data Verification
Data Verification occurs each August 1st – 31st 45Slide46
Section D: ECO City Data Verification HO#10
46Slide47
Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS
47Slide48
Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS
48Slide49
Section E: Parameterized Data Report
49Slide50
Section E: No Permanent Exit
50Slide51
Section E: Permanent Exit Report
51Slide52
Section E: Summary Statement Report
52Slide53
Section E: ECO Report
53Slide54
Sharing Your ECO Data
Sample messages that can be gleaned from your ECO data:Data show that children are making progress from entry to exit in the programMany children are catching up or getting closer to same age peersPoint out how programs are contributing to school readinessLink message to broader EC issues (i.e. cost effectiveness of high quality EC programs)54Slide55
What the data look like:Nationally
55Slide56
Part C and Preschool
Average Percentage of Children in Each Category Outcome 1: Social/EmotionalKasprzak & Rooney (2010)56Slide57
Part C and Preschool
Average Percentage of Children in Each CategoryOutcome 2: Knowledge/SkillsKasprzak & Rooney (2010)57Slide58
58
Part C and Preschool
Average Percentage of Children in Each Category
Outcome 3: Getting Needs Met
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)Slide59
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
59Slide60
Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)
60Slide61
Keeping our eye
on the prize: High qualityservices for childrenand families that willlead to good outcomes.Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)61Slide62
Questions?
62Slide63
ReferencesHebbeler, K., Kahn, L., Taylor, C. & Bailey, A. (2011).
Data Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Data. Presented at the Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference, New Orleans, LA. Kasprzak & Rooney (2010, March). Measuring Child Outcomes, Presentation for Delaware; ECO Center & NECTAC. Retrieved 10/3/11 from: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/assets/ppt/DE%20COSF%20training%20slides%20for%20web%204-12-10.ppt 63