1 / 23

Delaware COSF Data, SY2010-2011

Delaware COSF Data, SY2010-2011. Let’s look at some data …. 1. Definitions for Outcome Ratings: For Use with the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF). COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (Social and Emotional). 3. COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Exit data (Social and Emotional). 4.

goldy
Download Presentation

Delaware COSF Data, SY2010-2011

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. Delaware COSF Data, SY2010-2011 Let’s look at some data … 1

  2. Definitions for Outcome Ratings:For Use with the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)

  3. COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Entry data (Social and Emotional) 3

  4. COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 Exit data (Social and Emotional) 4

  5. Delaware COSF Ratings – Outcome 1 5

  6. COSF Ratings – Outcome 2 Entry data (Knowledge and Skills) 6

  7. COSF Ratings – Outcome 2 Exit data (Knowledge and Skills) 7

  8. Delaware COSF Ratings – Outcome 2 (Knowledge and Skills) 8

  9. COSF Ratings – Outcome 3 Entry data (Behavior Meets Needs) 9

  10. COSF Ratings – Outcome 3 Exit data (Behavior Meets Needs) 10

  11. Delaware COSF Ratings – Outcome 3 (Behavior Meets Needs) 11

  12. Average Entry and Exit Scores on Outcomes

  13. Outcome 1: Appropriate Action (DE 2011, Social and Emotional) 13

  14. Outcome 2: Appropriate Action (DE 2011, Knowledge and Skills) 14

  15. Outcome 3: Appropriate Action (DE 2011, Behavior Meets Needs) 15

  16. OSEP APR Indicator 7 a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers d. Percent of preschool children who 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

  17. 2011 OSEP Indicator 7 Data

  18. OSEP APR Indicator 7 Summary Statement Data 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. 2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program.

  19. OSEP APR Indicator 7 Summary Statements 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. 2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program.

  20. What are we doing to improve Child Outcome data? • New process for working with school districts to review Child Outcomes data • Revised Child Outcomes manual • Identify missing children who are not being entered in system • Communicate the COSF Process - provide ongoing training for completing COSF using multi-sources of information • Question unusual data • Troubleshoot problems

  21. What are we doing to improve Child Outcome data? • Provide professional development opportunities with Part B and C • Analyze teaming procedures for completing COSF using multi-sources of information • Encourage school districts to discuss and practice COSF process at staff meetings • Early Learning Foundations Child Outcomes crosswalk

  22. Results of theData Review Process • Site visits and webinars helped programs to answer the progress question correctly, which in turn, reduced the number of invalid OSEP scores from the year before (2010). • When Progress question was answered incorrectly it was revised when inappropriately answered with a “N”. This decreased the number of Invalid OSEP scores. • Found “regular” education students who were counted. • Programs found missing students (approximately two dozen). • Programs found that students had only 1 assessment entered in the system when they should have had more. The typical scenario is that the child would have the exit entered but not the initial.

  23. Data Review Process Lessons Learned • Districts lose access to enter/revise outcomes data once the child moves from building to building. This can be within same district or across districts. • Need to make sure COSF goes with child if they move to another building or district to ensure the following: • Child is not given more than 1 initial assessment. • District that is receiving the child has the information to help with services that will be provided to child.

More Related