1 / 16

Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Anne Lucas Measuring Child and Family Outcomes August 27 – 28, 2008. Age of accountability – IDEA 2004 Accountability increasingly means looking at results, not just process

devaki
Download Presentation

Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

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. Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Anne Lucas Measuring Child and Family Outcomes August 27 – 28, 2008

  2. Age of accountability – IDEA 2004 Accountability increasingly means looking at results, not just process Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under pressure to produce outcome data on children participating in early intervention and early childhood special education programs and for holding states accountable to requirements Public Policy Context

  3. The IDEA Accountability Trail Compliance, Results, Data-based Decisions and Technical Assistance SPP/APR & Determinations Data-based decisions Compliance and Results 2004 Results CIFMS Compliance to Procedural Safeguards 1997 CIMP Procedural Safeguards 1980’s Identification Compliance Monitoring 1969 ACCESS IDEA

  4. IDEA 2004 • Requires that states have a general supervision system that focuses on: • Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities • Ensuring that States meet the program requirements of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving results and outcomes for children with disabilities

  5. IDEA 2004 • States must have in place a General Supervision System that monitors implementation of IDEA by early intervention programs (whether or not they receive Part C funds), and local education agencies statewide. [IDEA 2004, Section 616(a)(2)]

  6. Components: State General Supervision System Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation State Performance Plan Integrated Monitoring Activities Data on Processes and Results Fiscal Management Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Effective Dispute Resolution

  7. Interrelationship of Components • Although the components are described separately (puzzle pieces), they connect, interact and articulate to form a comprehensive system (see Developing and Implementing an Effective System of General Supervision: Part C at www.accountabilitydata.org) • Each component informs and gains information from the others

  8. Implementation of Components • States have flexibility regarding how they: • Implement each of these components • Interrelate the components with other initiatives and needs within their state (including their organizational structure and other factors relevant to how they are accountable) • Design theirOwn Model of General Supervision based on what’s required and desired

  9. Interrelationship of Components

  10. State General Supervision System • State General Supervision System must include multiple methods to: • Ensure implementation of IDEA 2004 • Identify and correct noncompliance (e.g., off site and onsite monitoring, complaints) • Facilitate improvement • Support practices that improve results and functional outcomes for children and families

  11. Monitoring States are responsible for monitoring all Part C requirements using the all components of the General Supervision System (e.g., policies/procedures, IAs, contracts, complaints) . . . but . . . this is different from collecting and analyzing “monitoring” data to determine local program performance on an annual basis

  12. How are states integrating child and family outcomes into their local monitoring processes?

  13. Monitoring Indicators • Some states include child and family outcome compliance and quality indicators in their monitoring of local EI programs or LEAs • Adapting SPP/APR indicators (e.g., COSF completed at entry and exit for each child, family survey provided to families at time of annual IFSP meeting); and/or • Developing other state priority indicators (e.g., COSF ratings match assessment results)

  14. Collecting Monitoring Data • States use variety of methods to collect monitoring data on child and family outcomes: • Data system • Self-assessment • On-site monitoring or data verification visits

  15. State Presentations Wyoming and Utah

  16. Resources SPP/APR Calendar (C-9 and B-15) http://spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnetwork.org/ NECTAC General Supervision Webpage http://www.nectac.org/topics/quality/gensup.asp Anne Lucas alucas3@comcast.net

More Related