1 / 20

Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes

This article discusses considerations related to setting targets for child outcomes in early reading and state reading/language arts assessments. It highlights the importance of measuring language development, academic proficiency, and closing achievement gaps. The article provides examples of specific targets and baseline data for different programs.

tookes
Download Presentation

Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes

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. Considerations Related toSetting Targets for Child Outcomes

  2. Example 1: Early Reading First Measure: The percent of 4-year-old children participating in Early Reading First programs who achieve significant gains on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III Explanation: This measures the development of receptive language, a skill correlated with improved academic performance in kindergarten. The goal is for ERF children to catch up with their peers before entering school. This is the same test used for Head Start and for Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The baseline was set in 2004. (ED needs to provide info on its definition of "significant ")

  3. Example 2: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading/language arts assessments will increase to 77.7 percent. Explanation: This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in reading/language arts by SY 2013-2014. * The baseline has been recalculated since 2005-06 assessment data are now available, and that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

  4. Example 3: Title 1 Grants to Local Education Agencies Measure: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading/language arts assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading/language arts assessments will decrease to 6.5 percent. Explanation: This measure focuses on the program goal of closing achievement gaps between poor students and other students. * The baseline has been recalculated since 2005-06 assessment data are now available, and that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

  5. TERMINOLOGY Indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Measure (also known as the 5 OSEP progress categories): a. Percent of preschool childrenwho did not improve functioning b. Percent of preschool childrenwho improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of preschool childrenwho improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach d. Percent of preschool childrenwho improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

  6. Summary Statement: Single or combination of OSEP categories that will be used to describe child progress and for which targets will be set. Target: Numerical goal related to the summary statement, e.g, 65% in 2011; increase by 1% each year.

  7. Common ground (?) • % in Category A will be small and not likely to change much from year to year • % in Category E could vary considerably from state to state and is likely to reflect the state’s eligibility criteria Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  8. Impact of having many children entering at age expectations Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  9. Common ground (?) • Categories C and D reflect the “value added” by program participation, i.e., children who made greater than expected progress From year to year, • Want to see B go down and C or D go up • Want to see D go up with B and/or C going down Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  10. 1. Single category: Percentage of children reported in E Example: 25% of the children in Part C/619 entered the program at age expected levels in their social relationships, and were able to continue to function at an age expected level throughout their time in the program

  11. 2. Sum of two or more categories: Percent of children in C+D, i.e.¸ percentage of children who made greater than expected progress (or “made significant progress” or “exceeded developmental expectations” or ???) Example: 50% of the children participating in Part C/619 services made significant progress in the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

  12. 3. Sum of two or more categories: Percent of children in D+ E, i.e., the percentage of children who exited the program functioning like same age peers. Example: 40% of children left the Part C/619 program performing at age expectations

  13. 4. Sum of two or more categories: Percent of children in C+ D+ E, i.e., the percentage of children who maintained age appropriate functioning or made greater than expected progress. Example:75% of the children participating in Part C/619 maintained age appropriate functioning or made greater than expected progress in being able to take care of their needs during their time in the program.

  14. 5. Sum of two or more categories: Percent of children in B+C+D+E, i.e, the percentage of children who acquired new skills during their time in program Example: 96% of the children made progress in improving their social skills during their participation in Part C/619.

  15. 6. Relationship between two or more categories: Increase children who made greater than expected progress (C+D) and decrease the percentage of those who only made progress (B) Example: The percentage of children making greater than expected progress increased to 42% and the percentage who made less than age expected progress decreased to 21%.

  16. 7. Relationship between two or more categories. Of the children who entered the program below age expectations in an outcome area, the percentage who made greater than expected progress by exit (C+D)/(A+B+C+D). Example: 46% of children who entered services below age expectations related to acquiring knowledge and skills made significant gains in this outcome by exit.

  17. Impact of having many children entering at age expectations Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  18. Options for Summary Statement(s) • Single statement • Any of the above options • Two or more statements, e.g., • Percentage of children who met age expectations in the outcome at the end of Part C or 619 [D+E] • Percentage of children below age expectations in the outcome who made greater than expected progress [(C+D)/(A+B+C+D)] Early Childhood Outcomes Center

  19. Input needed on… • What should OSEP track for PART? • Should all states report on the same summary statements? • If yes, what should that/those summary statements be? • If no, should there be a set of options for states or would any statement be acceptable? Early Childhood Outcomes Center

More Related