New ECO Data Presentation [1] - ECTA Centerectacenter.org/.../KSECODataPresentationHandout.pdf · 2012. 10. 23. · Information from the OWS is used to make determinations for both

10/22/12  

1  

Kansas  Data  Drill  Down  Guide  and  

Training  Chelie  Nelson  Phoebe  Rinkel  David  Lindeman  Kansas  Technical  Assistance  Network  –  KITS    

KITS  Professional  Development  Model  

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of State-Level Technical Assistance

Intensive Staff

Development &

Technical Assistance

Focused Staff Development

• Communities of Practice

• Common Needs/Topics • Skill Enhancement

Proactive/General Issues of Staff Development

• Foster Collaboration • Increase Common

Knowledge • Develop System Capacity • Skill Development

Professional Development Model

Greater Intensity/ Duration

Less Intensity/ Duration

FEW

SOME

ALL

Designed for • S

pecific Programs

• Unique Needs

Designed for • Specific

Programs • Unique Needs • Skill

Application

ECO  Process  in  Kansas  

!!

"!

!

!!Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes SPP/APR: Indicator 7 Data for Part B-619 Preschool Programs

Data Drilldown Guide: Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome Data

_____________________________________________________________________________ !"#$%&'()$*&#!!The Kansas State Department of Education Part B-619 Preschool Programs and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Part C Infant-Toddler Services, have developed a collaborative system for collecting and reporting early childhood outcome data as required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Outcome data is used at the federal and state levels to examine the effectiveness of state programs serving young children with disabilities from birth through age five.!

To determine child progress on the outcomes, information is collected at four points in time: 1) when a child first enters Part C Early Intervention Services, 2) when a child permanently exits Part C Early Intervention Services, 3) when a child first enters Part B Preschool Services, and 4) when a child permanently exits Part B Preschool Services. Assessment information is used in a rating process that is documented on the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), adapted from the model developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/%7Eeco/index.cfm). Information on how to complete the COSF can be found on the Kansas Inservice Training Center Website (http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/whatDirectService/index.shtml )

Local networks and LEAs submit child outcome information into a statewide data collection system administered through the Kansas State Department of Education called the Outcomes Web Based System (OWS). Information from the OWS is used to make determinations for both state and local programs on Annual Performance Report (APR)/State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 3 for Part C programs and Indicator 7 for Part B preschool programs. Information regarding the APR/SPP indicators can be found at http://www.ksits.org/publications.htm (Part C) and http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2037 (Part B).

The Kansas State Department of Education and the Kansas Inservice Training System have developed this guide to support Part B-619 preschool programs in understanding their early childhood outcome data, evaluating their current early child outcome reporting process, and identifying patterns in their data that can lead to improved services for Kansas children and families.

Purpose  •  Developed  as  a  tool  for  local  Part  B  Preschool  Special  EducaHon  Programs    ü To  idenHfy  components  of  a  high  quality  system    ü To  evaluate  their  exisHng  Indicator  7  Data  ü To  encourage  decision  making  that  will  support  program  improvement  efforts  

5  

TA  Focused  on  Helping  Local  Programs  Understand  the  Data  

Entry

Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)

9

States Report Data in these categories

Percentage of children who: a)  Did not improve functioning b)  Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move

nearer to functioning comparable to same-age peers

c)  Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-age peers, but did not reach it

d)  Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age peers

e)  Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-age peers.

8

10/22/12  

2  

!!

"!

!

!!Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes SPP/APR: Indicator 7 Data for Part B-619 Preschool Programs

Data Drilldown Guide: Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome Data

_____________________________________________________________________________ !"#$%&'()$*&#!!The Kansas State Department of Education Part B-619 Preschool Programs and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Part C Infant-Toddler Services, have developed a collaborative system for collecting and reporting early childhood outcome data as required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Outcome data is used at the federal and state levels to examine the effectiveness of state programs serving young children with disabilities from birth through age five.!

To determine child progress on the outcomes, information is collected at four points in time: 1) when a child first enters Part C Early Intervention Services, 2) when a child permanently exits Part C Early Intervention Services, 3) when a child first enters Part B Preschool Services, and 4) when a child permanently exits Part B Preschool Services. Assessment information is used in a rating process that is documented on the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), adapted from the model developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/%7Eeco/index.cfm). Information on how to complete the COSF can be found on the Kansas Inservice Training Center Website (http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/whatDirectService/index.shtml )

Local networks and LEAs submit child outcome information into a statewide data collection system administered through the Kansas State Department of Education called the Outcomes Web Based System (OWS). Information from the OWS is used to make determinations for both state and local programs on Annual Performance Report (APR)/State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 3 for Part C programs and Indicator 7 for Part B preschool programs. Information regarding the APR/SPP indicators can be found at http://www.ksits.org/publications.htm (Part C) and http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2037 (Part B).

The Kansas State Department of Education and the Kansas Inservice Training System have developed this guide to support Part B-619 preschool programs in understanding their early childhood outcome data, evaluating their current early child outcome reporting process, and identifying patterns in their data that can lead to improved services for Kansas children and families.

5  Sec,ons    A.  Local  Policies  and  Procedures  for  Data  ReporHng  B.  District  APR  Data  C.  Addendum  Report  Data  D.  Data  VerificaHon  E.  Child  Level  Data  from  OWS  

7  

!!

"!

!

!!Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes SPP/APR: Indicator 7 Data for Part B-619 Preschool Programs

Data Drilldown Guide: Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome Data

_____________________________________________________________________________ !"#$%&'()$*&#!!The Kansas State Department of Education Part B-619 Preschool Programs and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Part C Infant-Toddler Services, have developed a collaborative system for collecting and reporting early childhood outcome data as required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Outcome data is used at the federal and state levels to examine the effectiveness of state programs serving young children with disabilities from birth through age five.!

To determine child progress on the outcomes, information is collected at four points in time: 1) when a child first enters Part C Early Intervention Services, 2) when a child permanently exits Part C Early Intervention Services, 3) when a child first enters Part B Preschool Services, and 4) when a child permanently exits Part B Preschool Services. Assessment information is used in a rating process that is documented on the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), adapted from the model developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/%7Eeco/index.cfm). Information on how to complete the COSF can be found on the Kansas Inservice Training Center Website (http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/whatDirectService/index.shtml )

Local networks and LEAs submit child outcome information into a statewide data collection system administered through the Kansas State Department of Education called the Outcomes Web Based System (OWS). Information from the OWS is used to make determinations for both state and local programs on Annual Performance Report (APR)/State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 3 for Part C programs and Indicator 7 for Part B preschool programs. Information regarding the APR/SPP indicators can be found at http://www.ksits.org/publications.htm (Part C) and http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2037 (Part B).

The Kansas State Department of Education and the Kansas Inservice Training System have developed this guide to support Part B-619 preschool programs in understanding their early childhood outcome data, evaluating their current early child outcome reporting process, and identifying patterns in their data that can lead to improved services for Kansas children and families.

•  Each  Sec,on  includes;  •  InformaHon  about  the  data  to  be  examined  and  where  it  can  be  found  

•  QuesHons  to  Guide  your  Review  Process  •  AcHon  Planning  Form  

8  

Action  Plan  

!!

6!

Early Childhood Outcome SPP/APR Improvement Activities Evaluation Action Plan Indicator 7 – Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

A. Positive social‐emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Section A: Policies and Procedures Action Plan

Improvement Activity Timeline Staff Responsible

Action Plan Steps Timeline Status

9  

!!

"!

!

!!Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes SPP/APR: Indicator 7 Data for Part B-619 Preschool Programs

Data Drilldown Guide: Understanding and Using Early Childhood Outcome Data

_____________________________________________________________________________ !"#$%&'()$*&#!!The Kansas State Department of Education Part B-619 Preschool Programs and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Part C Infant-Toddler Services, have developed a collaborative system for collecting and reporting early childhood outcome data as required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Outcome data is used at the federal and state levels to examine the effectiveness of state programs serving young children with disabilities from birth through age five.!

To determine child progress on the outcomes, information is collected at four points in time: 1) when a child first enters Part C Early Intervention Services, 2) when a child permanently exits Part C Early Intervention Services, 3) when a child first enters Part B Preschool Services, and 4) when a child permanently exits Part B Preschool Services. Assessment information is used in a rating process that is documented on the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), adapted from the model developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/%7Eeco/index.cfm). Information on how to complete the COSF can be found on the Kansas Inservice Training Center Website (http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/whatDirectService/index.shtml )

Local networks and LEAs submit child outcome information into a statewide data collection system administered through the Kansas State Department of Education called the Outcomes Web Based System (OWS). Information from the OWS is used to make determinations for both state and local programs on Annual Performance Report (APR)/State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 3 for Part C programs and Indicator 7 for Part B preschool programs. Information regarding the APR/SPP indicators can be found at http://www.ksits.org/publications.htm (Part C) and http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2037 (Part B).

The Kansas State Department of Education and the Kansas Inservice Training System have developed this guide to support Part B-619 preschool programs in understanding their early childhood outcome data, evaluating their current early child outcome reporting process, and identifying patterns in their data that can lead to improved services for Kansas children and families.

Suggested  Use  

• Local  ImplementaHon  Team  • Part  of  an  ongoing  strategic  planning  process  • May  be  completed  in  total  or  in  secHons  • Reassess  periodically  

10  

Section  A:  Examine  Local  Policies  and  Procedures  for  Data  Reporting  

•  Administrator  Quality  RaHng  Checklist  •  Data  Entry  Quality  RaHng  Checklist  •  Direct  Service  Provider  Quality  RaHng  Checklist    •  QuesHons  to  Guide  the  Review  Process  (pg.  4  Data  Drill  Down  Guide)  

11  

ECO City Example  

12  

Section  A:  Examine  Local  Policies  and  Procedures  for  Data  Reporting  

10/22/12  

3  

Section  B:  ECO  City  APR  Data   Section  B:  Locating  and  Examining  District  APR  Data  

Section  C:  Examining  Addendum  Reports  for  ECO  City    

�������� ����������������������������������

Indicator 6 - Least Restrictive Environment

Indicator 7 - Early Childhood Outcomes

���Blank numerical cells indicate data not available.

District IDEA State Performance Addendum ReportFederal Fiscal Year 2009 Data Reported on April 15, 2011

Indic. # Indicator Measurement

Current Year

Statewide Rate

Prev Year

District Rate

Current Year

District # Students

Current Year

District Rate

Current Year

District Rate MinusPrev Year

Progress/Slippage

6A LRE 3-5, Reg EC Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in the regular early childhood program 65.92% 80.28% ��������� 87.16% 6.88% P

6B LRE 3-5, Not Reg EC, SpEd Program

Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in Not Attending Regular Early Childhood program and Attending a Special Education Program

32.01% 16.90% �������� 12.16% -4.74% S

6CLRE 3-5, Not Reg EC, Not SpEd Program

Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in Not Attending Regular Early Childhood program and Not Attending a Special Education Program

2.08% 2.82% ������� 0.68% -2.14% S

Category Positive Social-Emotional Skills

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills

Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs

� State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

a - Children who did not improve functioning 0.52% ������ 0.00% 0.23% ������ 0.00% 0.29% ������ 0.00%

b - Children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same aged peers

10.06% ������� 18.18% 10.06% ������� 20.00% 7.94% ������� 21.82%

c - Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

23.76% ������� 25.45% 27.06% ������ 29.09% 13.84% ����� 12.73%

d - Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 33.96% ������ 29.09% 33.02% ������� 43.64% 36.03% ������� 34.55%

e - Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 31.70% ������� 27.27% 29.64% ������ 7.27% 41.90% ������ 30.91%

Total 100.00% ������� 100.00% 100.00% ������� 100.00% 100.00% ������� 100.00%

Summary Statements: State % District #of children

District %of children State % District #

of childrenDistrict %of children State % District #

of childrenDistrict %of children

1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their Rate of growth by the time they exited.

(c+d) / (a+b+c+d)

84.52% ������� 75.00% 85.38% ������� 78.43% 85.84% ������ 68.42%

2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited.

(d+e) / (a+b+c+d+e)

65.66% ������� 56.36% 62.65% ������� 50.91% 77.93% ������ 65.45%

15  

Section  C:  Locating  and  Examining  Addendum  Reports  

�������� ����������������������������������

Indicator 6 - Least Restrictive Environment

Indicator 7 - Early Childhood Outcomes

���Blank numerical cells indicate data not available.

District IDEA State Performance Addendum ReportFederal Fiscal Year 2009 Data Reported on April 15, 2011

Indic. # Indicator Measurement

Current Year

Statewide Rate

Prev Year

District Rate

Current Year

District # Students

Current Year

District Rate

Current Year

District Rate MinusPrev Year

Progress/Slippage

6A LRE 3-5, Reg EC Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in the regular early childhood program 65.92% 80.28% ��������� 87.16% 6.88% P

6B LRE 3-5, Not Reg EC, SpEd Program

Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in Not Attending Regular Early Childhood program and Attending a Special Education Program

32.01% 16.90% �������� 12.16% -4.74% S

6CLRE 3-5, Not Reg EC, Not SpEd Program

Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities ages 35 counted in Not Attending Regular Early Childhood program and Not Attending a Special Education Program

2.08% 2.82% ������� 0.68% -2.14% S

Category Positive Social-Emotional Skills

Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills

Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs

� State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

State % of children

District # of children

District % of children

a - Children who did not improve functioning 0.52% ������ 0.00% 0.23% ������ 0.00% 0.29% ������ 0.00%

b - Children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same aged peers

10.06% ������� 18.18% 10.06% ������� 20.00% 7.94% ������� 21.82%

c - Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

23.76% ������� 25.45% 27.06% ������ 29.09% 13.84% ����� 12.73%

d - Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 33.96% ������ 29.09% 33.02% ������� 43.64% 36.03% ������� 34.55%

e - Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 31.70% ������� 27.27% 29.64% ������ 7.27% 41.90% ������ 30.91%

Total 100.00% ������� 100.00% 100.00% ������� 100.00% 100.00% ������� 100.00%

Summary Statements: State % District #of children

District %of children State % District #

of childrenDistrict %of children State % District #

of childrenDistrict %of children

1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their Rate of growth by the time they exited.

(c+d) / (a+b+c+d)

84.52% ������� 75.00% 85.38% ������� 78.43% 85.84% ������ 68.42%

2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited.

(d+e) / (a+b+c+d+e)

65.66% ������� 56.36% 62.65% ������� 50.91% 77.93% ������ 65.45%

16  

Section  C:  Examining  ECO  City  Addendum  Reports    

17  

Progress  and  Slippage  Reports  

Section  D:  Data  Veri@ication  

•  Data  VerificaHon  occurs  each  August  1st  –  31st    

18  

15.34.3123� � 6�

����%!#�5�� 0��#'����/�������%����#�����%�! �

�

��������5������� ����7- �����%�%��� ����%!#�5��)�%���"!#%��#!��%�����"!#%��*"���� &-�

��

21- ������! ��)�����&%%! �%!�$���%���#�"!#%�#�$&�%$�� �� ��)��������-��������! � ����&%%! �%!�$���%���#�"!#%�#�$&�%$�� �� � �������-���

���!(��$�� ��)��"���!��� ��)�%�#�"!#%�� � ���������!#��%-������$%&�� %�! �%���#�"!#%��$�� �� 0��#'����� �����%$�%���! ��!��%����#�%�#����!#�� ��)�%�� �� 0��#'���-���!(�'�#,���������(�%��%������.�#�� �+�%�! �� �������(�$� !%��!& ��� ����-�

��

22- �!��!(�%���� $%#&�%�! $�� �%��� ����%!#�5����!��#!��%��������"��������&��%�! ���#�*�������!!���!!#�� �%!#-�

10/22/12  

4  

Section  D:  ECO  City  Data  Veri@ication  

19  

Section  E:  Examining  Child  Level  Data  in  OWS  

20  

Section  E:  Examining  Child  Level  Data  in  OWS  

21  

How  is  the  KSDE  ECO  Data  Drill  Down  Guide  Being  Used?  Examples  of  ImplementaHon    at  the  Local  Level  

Level  2:    Targeted  TA  to  Support  Local  Use  of                  KSDE  ECO  Data  Drilldown  Guide  

  Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline   Staff  Respon-­‐sibility  

Ac,on  Plan  Steps   Ac,on  Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan  Status  

SecHon  A  1.  Complete  ECO  Admin.  Quality  RaHng  Checklist  2.  Complete  ECO  Data  Entry  Quality  RaHng  Checklist    3.  Complete  ECO  Direct  Service  Provider  Quality  RaHng  Checklist      

4-­‐9-­‐12                  May  2012  

Ben                  All  EC  direct  service  staff    

1  &  2.  IdenHfy  any  procedures  not  yet  in  place  or  not  being  monitored.    Provide  guidance  on  any  procedural  modificaHons,  i.e.,  not  accepHng  Part  C  exit  raHngs  at  entry.  3.  Following  training  4-­‐12-­‐12,  all  staff  will  complete  checklist  in  early  May  (prior  to  compleHng  COSF  exit  raHngs).    

4-­‐12-­‐12   Completed  

Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline   Staff  Respon-­‐sibility  

Ac,on  Plan  Steps  

Ac,on  Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan  Status  

SecHon  A    4.  Provide  training  on  idenHfying  funcHonal  outcomes  and  use  of  DocumenHng  the  Basis  of  RaHngs  Form  and  Decision  Tree      

4-­‐12-­‐12                  

Ben,  with  Phoebe  Rinkel,  KITS                  

Use  handouts  for  new  staff  training  and  case  study  of  Rachel  from  KITS  website.  Require  DBRF  to  be  turned  in  with  COSF  to  monitor  team  process  of  idenHfying  funcHonal  skills  and  behaviors  across  outcomes.    

4-­‐12-­‐12   Completed  

10/22/12  

5  

Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline  

Staff  Respon-­‐sibility  

Ac,on  Plan  Steps   Ac,on  Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan  Status  

SecHon  A  5.  Develop  professional  development  plan  for  training  new  staff  in  ECO    

August  2012                

Ben,  with  Phoebe  Rinkel,  KITS                  

5.  IdenHfy  relevant  resources  from  KITS  website  Develop  calendar,  Hmelines,  and  assign  responsibiliHes  for  mentoring  new  staff    

Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline  

Staff  Respon-­‐sibility  

Ac,on  Plan  Steps  

Ac,on  Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan  Status  

SecHon  B    Review  public  report  data  with  EC  team  

4-­‐12-­‐12                

Ben                

IdenHfy  summary  statements  where  district  did  not  meet  state  targets  

4-­‐12-­‐12   Completed  

Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline  

Staff  Respon-­‐sibility  

Ac,on  Plan  Steps  

Ac,on  Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan  Status  

SecHon  C    Share  with  staff:  a.  differences  in  percentages  by  outcomes;  b.  decrease  in  percentages  in  5/6  categories  in  FY2010  compared  with  FY2009    

4-­‐12-­‐12                

Ben,  with  Phoebe  Rinkel,  KITS                

Compare  ECO  categories  and  summary  statements  in  district  with  state  targets.  Look  at  Progress  and  Slippage  report  to  see  how  many  kids  are  represented  in  each  category.    

4-­‐12-­‐12   Completed  

Improvement  Ac,vity  

Timeline   Staff    Responsibility   Ac,on  Plan  Steps   Ac,on  

Plan  Timeline  

Ac,on  Plan    Status  

SecHon  E    Looking  for  pagerns/red  flags  in  parameterized  report,  noted  wide  variance  between  raHngs  for  individual  children,  i.e.,  -­‐22/78  raHngs  differ  by  3  or  more  points  across  the  3  outcomes  -­‐11/22  rate  outcome  B  significantly  lower  than  A  or  C  

4-­‐9-­‐12                

Ben,  with  Phoebe  Rinkel,  KITS                

 1.Share  informaHon  with  staff  to  clarify  that  outcomes  are  interrelated,  with  overlap  across  all  developmental  areas,  i.e.,  there  is  no  “communicaHon”  outcome,  no  “motor”  outcome,  no  “kindergarten  readiness”  outcome      2.Monitor  exit  raHngs  in  May  2012  and  compare  pagerns  with  FY  2010  parameterized  report.      3.Monitor  entry/exit  raHngs  through  FY  2012  to  ensure    a.  consistency  of  raHngs  across  the  3  outcomes    b.  more  progress  than  slippage  across  all  summary  statements  c.  significant  improvement  toward  meeHng  state  targets  in  outcomes  A1  and  B2    

4-­‐12-­‐12   Completed  

Level  2:    Targeted  TA  to  Support  Local  Use  of                  KSDE  ECO  Data  Drilldown  Guide  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%  

A  

B  

C  

D  

E  

F  

COSF  Ra,ngs  Comparison  Among  Comparable  Districts  FY2010  

Entry  %  1-­‐2s  

Exit  %  1-­‐2s  

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7  

A  

B  

C  

D  

E  

F  

COSF  Ra,ngs  Among  Comparable  Districts  FY2010  

Entry  #1s  

Exit  #1s  

10/22/12  

6  

0%   5%   10%   15%   20%   25%   30%   35%   40%  

Entry  %  1-­‐2  

Entry  %  1  

Entry  %  1X3  

COSF  Ra,ngs  for  USD  F    

FY  11  (9  mo)  

FY  10  

Level  3:    Individualized  TA    Plan  for  District  Ac,vi,es   Timelines  

1.    Complete  data  drill  down,  reviewing  reports  generated  in  OWS  as  well  as  other  district  data  to  idenHfy  data  pagerns.    Use  informaHon  from  data  drill  down  to  idenHfy  possible  reasons  for  data  discrepancies  between  district  and  state  reports.  

April-­‐May  2011  

2.    Develop  plan  to  address  any  variables  that  can  and  should  be  changed  to  close  gap  between  state  and  district  targets  reported  for  SS1,  while  conHnuing  to  meet  the  targets  for  SS2  in  all  3  outcomes.  

June  2011  

3.    Implement  plan  during  2011-­‐12  school  year  that  will  result  in  improvement  toward  meeHng  state  targets  for  SS1,  while  conHnuing  to  meet  targets  for  SS2,  in  all  outcomes,  by  2013.  

April  2012  

Resources  Needed  •  Kansas  APR  Reports  for  2009-­‐2013;  •  ECO  Data  Drill  Down  Guide;    •  COSF  training  resources  from  KITS  website;    •  Updated  AEPS  training  resources  for  district  trainers;    •  Dedicated  inservice  training  Hme  for  COSF  and  AEPS  training  in  2011-­‐2012    

Evaluation  Plan  Ques,ons   Measures   Persons  

Responsible  

Timeline   Status  

1.    Was  data  drill  down  completed,  and  were  possible  reasons  idenHfied  to  explain  data  discrepancies?    

KSDE  ECO  Data  Drill  Down  Guide  quesHons  completed    

EC  leaders  and  Phoebe  

May  2011  

Completed  and  summarized  May  24,  2011  (on  file).    IdenHfied  higher  percent  of  “speech  only”  students  served  in  comparison  with  statewide  data.    IHnerant  SLPs  have  not  all  received  current  training  on  team  process  for  making  COSF  raHngs  and  appear  to  be  raHng  most  students  6  or  7  on  all  3  outcomes.    

Ques,ons   Measures   Persons  Respon-­‐  sible  

Timeline   Status  

2.  Was  a  plan  developed  to  address  any  variables  that  can  and  should  be  changed  in  order  to  close  the  gap  between  state  and  district  targets  for  SS1?  

Training  needs  idenHfied  in  KSDE  ECO  Data  Drilldown  Guide;  training  events  scheduled  with  assistance  from  KITS  staff,  in  collaboraHon  with  staff  idenHfied  by  district  as  future  COSF  trainers    

EC  Leaders  and  Phoebe  

-­‐Aug  11,  2011  COSF  process  training  (with  Phoebe  and  district  representaHves  idenHfied  as  trainers)  scheduled  for  all  ECSE  staff    -­‐Sept  14,  2011  targeted  training  (with  Chelie,  Phoebe,  and  district  idenHfied  trainers)  scheduled  for  all  SLPs    -­‐March-­‐April  2012  All  staff  repeat  self  -­‐assessment  of  Process  Quality  RaHng  Form  for  Direct  Service  Provider    

-­‐AEPS  training  CD  provided  to  EC  leaders  5-­‐4-­‐11  for  use  in  training  all  SLPs  and  new  ECSEs.    AEPS  training  provided  by  district  trainers  8-­‐11-­‐11.  -­‐Overview  of  COSF  training  and  updates  provided  to  all  ECSE  staff  8-­‐11-­‐11.    Pre/post,  baseline  Self-­‐assessment  of  Process  Quality  RaHngs  form,  and  EvaluaHons  on  file,  indicaHng  need  to  clarify  COSF  raHngs  and  team  process  for  iHnerant  speech  students.  Pre-­‐test  KEY  sent  8-­‐11-­‐11  to  be  posted  on  Moodle.  Summaries  of  baseline  self  -­‐assessments  and  evaluaHons  shared  in  meeHng  10-­‐14-­‐11  (on  file).  -­‐Targeted  training  for  all  SLPs  9-­‐14-­‐11;  evaluaHons  on  file,  indicaHng  improved  understanding  of  COSF  raHngs  and  team  process.    EvaluaHon  summaries  shared  10-­‐14-­‐11  (on  file).  

Ques,ons   Measures   Persons  Respon-­‐  sible  

Timeline   Status  

3.  Was  the  plan  implemented  during  the  2011-­‐12  school  year  and  wrigen  procedures  developed  to  ensure  fidelity  of  implementaHon  beyond  the  2011-­‐12  school  year?    

ECO  verificaHon  process    -­‐ECO  AdministraHve  Process  Quality  RaHng  Form  -­‐Data  Entry  Process  for  ECO  Quality  RaHng  Form  -­‐Child  Outcome  Summary  Form  Process  Quality  RaHng  Form    

EC  Leaders    

-­‐ECO  verificaHon  process  completed  by  August  31,  2011  -­‐  ECO  Process  Quality  RaHng  Forms  completed  in  fall  2011  (baseline)  and  repeated  in  Mar-­‐Apr  2012  for  progress  monitoring.    -­‐Wrigen  procedures  developed  and  in  place  for  monitoring  fidelity  of  implementaHon  of  COSF  raHngs  process  by  5-­‐31-­‐12.  Leadership  team  will  use  workdays        11-­‐15-­‐11,  2-­‐7-­‐12,  3-­‐19-­‐12,  and  4-­‐17-­‐12.    

-­‐Following  verificaHon  process,  district  developed  online  COSF  reporHng  process,  including  drop-­‐down  menu  for  supporHng  evidence,  linked  with  AEPS  goal  statements  and  Kansas  Early  Learning  Standards  -­‐  ECO  Process  Quality  RaHng  forms  for  Direct  Service  Providers  completed  by  all  ECSE  staff  8-­‐11-­‐11  (on  file  )    -­‐ECO  Admin  Process  Quality  RaHng  Form  and  Data  Entry  Process  Quality  RaHng  Form  completed  by  EC  administrator  August  2011.  -­‐Wrigen  ECO  COSF  procedures  developed  and  posted  on  share  drive  (moodle)  Aug  2011.    District  ECO  COSF  procedures  implemented  in  2011-­‐2012    and  monitored  by  EC  administrator  in  August,  October,  January,  and  May.        

10/22/12  

7  

Ques,ons   Measures   Persons  Respon-­‐  sible  

Timeline   Status  

4.  Was  plan  effecHve  in  improving  district’s  student  performance  on  SS1  across  all  3  outcomes?    

APR  district  status  report  and  district  expanded  report    

EC  Leaders  with  KITS  staff    

April  2013   March  15,  2012  District  Public  APR  showed  USD  met  or  exceeded  all  6  targets  for  ECO  Indicator  7.  

Lessons  Learned      Training  is  important.    Many  pracHHoners  need  •  Training  in  curriculum-­‐based  assessment;  •  Resources  on  typical  child  development;    •  Help  understanding  the  relaHonship  between  assessment  for  child  outcome  raHngs  and  evaluaHon  for  eligibility  determinaHon;    

•  Support  in  implemenHng  an  effecHve  team  process.    For  speech-­‐language  pathologists,  this  training  may  be  cri5cally  important.  

Lessons  Learned      Administrators  need  to  implement  a  process  for  ongoing  monitoring  of  •    training  for  new  staff;  •    use  of  curriculum  based  assessment;    •    team  process  for  compleHng  the  raHngs;  •    “reasonable”  child  outcome  summary  raHngs  for  individuals,  

groups.    

Lessons  Learned      Administrators  and  pracHHoners  want  to  understand  their  data,  including  

 How  it’s  calculated;    How  it’s  reported;    How  it’s  used  (and  how  it  could  be  used).      

Lessons  Learned      •  Part  B  and  Part  C  are  separate  programs  with  different  goals.    Part  B  programs  should  not  accept  Part  C  exit  raHngs  as  their  entry  raHngs  unless  they  worked  as  a  team,  using  shared  data,  to  document  the  basis  for  the  raHngs  and  determine  the  raHngs  together.  

•  Part  B  needs  to  decide  how  to  beger  engage  the  families  in  the  raHngs  process  as  we  plan  to  integrate  outcomes  with  the  IEP.  

  Kansas  Inservice  Training  System  (KITS)  is  a  program  of  the  Life  Span  InsHtute  at  Parsons  and  is  supported  through  grants  from  the  Kansas  State  Department  of  EducaHon  –  Special  EducaHon  Services  (Grant  #21013)  as  a  part  of  the  Kansas  Technical  Assistance  System  Network  (TASN)  and  the  Kansas  Department  of  Health  and  Environment  –  Infant  Toddler  Services.    The  University  of  Kansas  is  an  Equal  Opportunity/AffirmaHve  AcHon  Employer  and  does  not  discriminate  in  its  programs  and  acHviHes.  Federal  and  state  legislaHon  prohibits  discriminaHon  on  the  basis  of  race,  religion,  color,  naHonal  origin,  ancestry,  sex,  age,  disability,  and  veteran  status.  In  addiHon,  University  policies  prohibit  discriminaHon  on  the  basis  of  sexual  orientaHon,  marital  status,  and  parental  status.