1 / 95

Hawai’i January, 2008

Progress toward Measuring Goals in Early Intervention: What’s New from What Counts. Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International. Hawai’i January, 2008. Objectives. Review why data are being collected Describe national trends Identify and address challenges to good data

nevina
Download Presentation

Hawai’i January, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress toward Measuring Goals in Early Intervention: What’s New from What Counts Kathy Hebbeler ECO at SRI International Hawai’i January, 2008

  2. Objectives • Review why data are being collected • Describe national trends • Identify and address challenges to good data • Discuss some preliminary data from Hawai’i Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  3. Why are we doing this? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  4. Keeping our eye on the prize: High quality services for children and families that will lead to good outcomes. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  5. High Quality Data on Outcomes • Data are a piece of a system that helps to achieve overarching goals for children and families • Data yield • Findings that can be interpreted as having a particular meaning that should lead to specific actions to improve the system. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

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

  7. The Vision: Using Data as a Tool for Program Improvement • Hawai’i will have quality data available on an ongoing basis about multiple components of the system • Goals for children and families • Services provided • Personnel (types, qualifications, etc.) • Etc. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  8. Driving Force for Data on Child Goals Comes from the Federal Level • Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) • Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  9. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed in 1993 • Requires goals and indicators be established for IDEA • Indicators and data collection further along for school age population than for EC • Previously, for early childhood data had been collected on: • Number of children served (Part C) • Settings (both Part C and 619) Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  10. OSEP: PART evaluation results (2002) • 130 programs examined in 2002; 50% programs had no performance data • Programs looking at inputs, not results • Part C and Section 619 • No long-term child outcome goals or data • Need to develop a strategy to collect annual performance data in a timely manner Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  11. Federal Funding for Early Intervention Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  12. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act SEC. 616. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1416.>> MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT. ``(a) Federal and State Monitoring.-….. ….. ``(2) Focused monitoring.--The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities described in paragraph (1) shall be on-- ``(A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  13. Where are we now: Federal reporting requirements Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  14. OSEP Reporting Requirements: the Goals • Positive social emotional skills (including positive social relationships) • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication [and early literacy]) • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  15. 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 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  16. Reported February 2007 Entry information: Age expected? Yes, No One time requirement Reported for children entering between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006 Due February 2008 Data in reporting categories at exit for all children who have been in the program for at least 6 months Must be reported for the year beginning July 1, 2006 Repeat with next year’s data in 2009, etc. Reporting Schedule Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  17. Also • States are required to • Make public data reported to OSEP • Analyze state data by program (i.e., compute a through e for each program) • Make public the data by program Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  18. Age in Months

  19. Point of clarification “Why are we comparing children with delays and disabilities to typically developing children?” Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  20. Point of clarification • Process is NOT about comparing groups of children – it IS about asking how close children are to being able to do what is expected at their age • Early learning guidelines • Kindergarten and access to the general curriculum Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  21. Source: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study

  22. Where are we now: State decisions and activities Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  23. WHY? Purpose To meet provider/teacher, local and/or state need for outcome information and to respond to federal reporting requirements To respond to federal reporting requirements Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  24. State approaches • Most states have embraced outcomes measurement and are collecting outcomes data for their own purposes. • Many states are building bigger systems than needed to produce the federal data. • Go to www.the-eco-center.org for more information about what other states are doing Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  25. How are states collecting child outcomes/goal data? Possible state approaches to collection of child data • Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) [= Early Intervention Child Goals Summary Form in HI] • Publisher’s online assessment system • Single assessment statewide • Other approaches Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  26. State approaches to measurement for Part C child outcomes • 40 states using the ECO Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) • 8 states using 1 assessment tool statewide • 3 states using on-line assessment systems with the capacity to report OSEP data reports • 5 states using other unique approaches Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  27. Variations across states in CGSF implementation • Some states started early (HI); some did not start until mid to late 2007 • Some states completing at IFSP; others at a separate meeting • Some states including parents in the discussion; some are not Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  28. Where states are now • First data on 5 categories due to OSEP February 3 • Many states do not have data on many children yet • Many states focusing on improving the process of collecting the data Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  29. What do we know so far: Positive impacts of the goals rating process Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  30. Positive impacts reported by states • Increases focus on functional outcomes on IFSPs • Easier to write functional outcomes on IFSP • Facilitates communication with parents Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  31. Benefits of discussing the 3 goals • “Requires us to talk & think in terms of functional behaviors, not test items • Incorporates the parents as active and knowledgeable participants • Looks at all settings and situations • Bridges the gap between assessment tools and real life.” From presentation by Sandi Harrington, Norfolk, VA Infant Development Program, at the OSEP EC Meeting, December 2007 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  32. Benefits • “Is more meaningful to families • Prepares the family for setting IFSP outcomes – thinking about the skills they want their child to have to function in their daily family life • Guides us towards discipline-free contextualized goals.” From presentation by Sandi Harrington, Norfolk, VA Infant Development Program, at the OSEP EC Meeting, December 2007 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  33. Benefits of INCLUDING families • “Determining child progress requires we use the family’s expertise and knowledge of their child across setting and situations • Our discussion becomes more inclusive with the family as an equal source of information for assessment purposes.” From presentation by Sandi Harrington, Norfolk Infant Development Program, at the OSEP EC Meeting, December 2007 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  34. Benefits of INCLUDING families • “One of the biggest shifts in practice, for many systems, was the move to compare their children in Part C to their same age peers. • Looking to children in the frame of same age peers allows us to have authentic, honest discussions with families about their child’s strengths and needs.” From presentation by Sandi Harrington, Norfolk Infant Development Program, at the OSEP EC Meeting, December 2007 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  35. Benefits of INCLUDING families • “We need to be comfortable with reporting strengths AND areas of delay, while being family friendly.” From presentation by Sandi Harrington, Norfolk Infant Development Program, at the OSEP EC Meeting, December 2007 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  36. What do we know so far: Challenges to getting good information Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  37. Need for good data • Encompasses all three levels: federal, state, local • Depends on how well local programs are implementing procedures Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  38. What we are learning nationally The process of training for child outcomes data collection has uncovered other areas of significant need related to professional development. Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  39. Essential Knowledge for Completing the Child Goals Summary Form Between them, team members must: • Know about the child’s functioning across settings and situations • Understand age-expected child development • Understand the content of the three child outcomes • Know how to use the rating scale • Understand age expectations for child functioning within the child’s culture Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  40. Important point • It is not necessary that all team members be knowledgeable in all 5 areas • Especially, no expectation that parents understand the rating scale or typical child development • But the professionals have to! Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  41. Providers need to know more about: • Assessment • How to gather assessment data to reflect functioning across settings and situations, especially how to gather child functioning information from families • Understanding the results of the assessment • Sharing assessment results sensitively and honestly with families Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  42. Providers need to know more about: • Functional outcomes • What are they? • How do they differ from outcomes organized around domains? • What do they mean for how professionals from different disciplines operate as a team? • Typical child development • What are the functional expectations for children at different ages with regard to each of the 3 goal statements? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  43. Is this process too subjective to produce good data? • Best practices in assessment requires looking at multiples sources of information • Assessment as a tool vs. assessment as a process • Research on judgment-based assessment indicates it is as good or better than traditional assessment Early Childhood Outcomes Center

More Related