Idahos Early Childhood Outcomes System Idaho ECOS Measuring

Idaho’s Early Childhood Outcomes System (Idaho ECOS) Measuring Early Childhood Outcomes Idaho Infant Toddler Program Idaho Early Childhood Special Education Program 1

Agenda • Measuring Child Outcomes: – Why, What, When, Where, – Who & How • Review Child Outcome Summary Form, Tools & Resources • Practice Exercises • 2

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 3

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) 4

Idaho’s goal Document our program’s impact for children with IFSPs or IEPs 5

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 6

What are the OSEP’s Early Childhood Outcomes? 7

OSEP’s outcomes focus on measuring the results of our service system 8

OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes 1. Children have positive socialemotional skills (including positive social relationships) 2. Children acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language /communication) 3. Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 9

OSEP’s 3 Child Outcomes 1. Children have positive socialemotional 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. 10

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. 11

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. 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

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

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 17

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 18

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

Thinking about how children are doing with regard to each outcome. Movement away from age-expected Age-expected skills & behavior Movement toward age-expected 20

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. 21

OSEP Indicators & Measurement Categories 5 year old level Group a: maintained or reached typical 2 year old level Entry Exit 22

Indicators & Measurement Categories 5 year old level Group b: made progress but… 2 year old level Entry Exit 23

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

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 25

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

Quality Assessment Quality Service Better Outcomes 27

“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) 28

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 29

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 normreferenced scales, informed clinical opinion, work samples) 30

What information is gathered? Norm-referenced, criterionreferenced or curriculum-based assessments Informed Professional Judgment & Observation Multiple sources of data are used to rate a child’s functioning Parent Input 31

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 ) 32

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 33

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. 34

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 35

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 36

Sample Crosswalk 37

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 38

The Specifics: Who, What, and When 39

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) 40

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 relatedservice can use ASQ and ASQ-SE in lieu of full developmental evaluation as one data source in determining exit outcome rating 41

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 3 rd 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 3 rd birthday (whichever comes first). 42

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 43

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 44

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 45

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 46

47

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 48 was administered

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 1 st 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. 49

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. 50

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. 51

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. 52

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 53

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

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. 55

The Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF) 56

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 57

Child Outcome Summary Form Key Features • Uses diverse information for global view of a child • Compares a child’s functioning to sameaged 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 58 areas

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 ageexpected level • Lowest score (1) = farthest distance from age-expectations – Progress Question (to be completed only at exit) 59

60

Thinking about how children are doing with regard to each outcome. Movement away from age-expected Age-expected 7 skills & behavior Movement toward age-expected 61

Outcome Ratings: A 7 -Point Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Not Yet - Between emerging and not yet - Emerging - Between somewhat and emerging - Somewhat - Between completely and somewhat -Completely 62

63

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 64

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 65

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 66

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 67 parents about process and purpose.

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 70

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