Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement

1. Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data for Program Improvement TASN – KITS Fall 2012 Webinar August 31st, 2012 Tiffany Smith Phoebe Rinkel Chelie Nelson

3. Online Resourceswww.kskits.org

4. Agenda • Overview of the Early Childhood Outcome (ECO) Data • Kansas Data Drill Down Guide Case Study • Examining Policies and Procedures • Examining APR Reports • Examining ECO Addendum Reports • Examining Data Verification • Examining Child Level Data in OWS

5. 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 targets

6. 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

7. How Kansas Early Childhood Outcome Data is Reported

8. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

9. Entry Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

10. Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

11. Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

12. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

13. a Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

14. a Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

15. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

16. b Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

17. b Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

18. b Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

19. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

20. c Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

21. c Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

22. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

23. d Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

24. States Report Data in these categories Percentage of children who: • Did not improve functioning • Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers • Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it • Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers • Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

25. e Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

26. e Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

27. e Entry Exit Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

28. 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

29. State ECO Targets FY 2010 (Reported on March 2012) State targets change each year, always be sure to use the most current data for your data drill down

30. 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 Data • To encourage decision making that will support program improvement efforts

31. 5 Sections • Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting • District APR Data • Addendum Report Data • Data Verification • Child Level Data from OWS

32. Each Section includes; • Information about the data to be examined and where it can be found • Questions to Guide your Review Process • Action Planning Form

33. Action Plan

34. Suggested Use • Local Implementation Team • Part of an ongoing strategic planning process • May be completed in total or in sections • Reassess periodically

35. Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting Many Steps for Ensuring Quality Data • Good Data Collection/Training • Good data system and data entry • Ongoing supervision of implementation • Feedback to implementers • Refresher training • Review of COSF Records • Data Analyses for validity checks Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

36. Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting • Administrator Quality Rating Checklist • Data Entry Quality Rating Checklist • Direct Service Provider Quality Rating Checklist • Questions to Guide the Review Process (pg. 4 Data Drill Down Guide)

37. ECO City Example – HO#6 Section A: Examine Local Policies and Procedures for Data Reporting

38. Section B: Locating and Examining District APR Data

39. Section B: ECO City APR Data – HO#7

40. Comparing ECO City Data with State Data

41. Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports

42. Section C: Examining Addendum Reports for ECO City – HO#8

43. Section C: Examining ECO City Addendum Reports – HO#9 Progress and Slippage Reports

44. Section C: Locating and Examining Addendum Reports

45. Section D: Data Verification • Data Verification occurs each August 1st – 31st

46. Section D: ECO City Data Verification HO#10

47. Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS

48. Section E: Examining Child Level Data in OWS

49. Section E: Parameterized Data Report

50. Section E: No Permanent Exit