Target Setting For Indicator #7 Child Outcomes WDPI Stakeholder Group December 16, 2009 Ruth Chvojicek Statewide Child Outcomes Coordinator 1 OSEP Child.

Target Sett ing For Indicator #7 Chi ld Outcomes

WDPI Stakeholder GroupDecember 16, 2009

R u t h C h v o j i c e kS t a t e w i d e C h i l d O u t c o m e s C o o r d i n a t o r

1

OSEP Child Outcomes

2

Goals for today

Review Indicator 7 dataSet targets for two summary

statements for each of the three child outcomes

3

Indicator #7 – Child Outcomes

Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

4

Basic Reporting Requirements

Districts determine child’s level of

functioning using a 7-point scale and

report entry

and exit data to

the state

State convert

s the data to

5 progres

s categories and reports to OSEP

New – State

tabulates data

from 5 progress categories into 2 summary statemen

ts and reports to OSEP

5

Data Timeline

20005-2006 •Small Pilot – 16 Districts •Children who entered services April 1 – June 30, 2006

2006 – 2007 •Began sampling – Districts in 2006-2007 Self- Assessment Cycle

2007-2008•Districts in 2007-2008 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample •February 2008 APR reported all children who exited 2006-2007•Progress data

2008-2009•Districts in 2008-2009 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample•February 2009 APR reported all children who exited in 2007-2008•Progress data

6

Data Timeline

2009-2010 •Districts in 2009-2010 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample •February 2010 APR will report all children who exited in 2008-2009 cycle year•Baseline Data

2010 - 2011•Districts in 2010 – 2011 Self-Assessment Cycle will join sample•February 2011 APR will report all children who exited in 2009-2010 cycle year compared to targets for 2009-10•Have option to adjust targets with justification•DPI will publicly report LEA results on Special Education District Profile

2011 - 2012 •February 2012 APR will report all children who exited in 2010-2011 cycle year compared to targets for 2010-11•DPI will publicly report LEA results on Special Education District Profile

7

Wisconsin’s “Birth to 6” Child Outcome System

• Part B sampling strategy (Part C – Census)• Any child with an initial IEP and placement

date that falls between July 1 and June 30 of the district’s self-assessment cycle year makes up a district’s sample cohort.• Report on all children in cohort until they turn 6 or

exit the program• Builds on existing practices• Emphasizes on-going assessment• Uses a team process to share information

Wisconsin’s “Birth to 6” Child Outcome System

8

Using the child outcome summary, team determines the entry rating within 60 days of entry into preschool program for each child who begins services between July 1st and June 30th of the cycle year.

Each child in the sample cohort is followed until they turn six, exit services, or moves out of a district.

It is recommended but not required that the Part C exit rating be used as the Part B entry rating. This data is available on the Program Participation System (PPS).

Child outcome information is reported on the DPI Special Education Web Portal – Child Outcomes database by September 1st following the June 30th close of their entry year and each subsequent year until all of the students in the sample cohort have exited.

9

Three Child Outcomes

Children have positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

Children acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)

Children use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

10

Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)

7 point rating scale Team summarizes multiple data

sources (NOT an assessment) Rating the status of child’s functioning

at entry and again at exit Comparing child’s functioning to what

is expected at his/her age

11

Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Child Outcome Summary Form (1 of 3) Date Form Completed: Entry Rating or Exit Rating (Check One) Child Information Name:

Date of Birth:

Entry Date:

Exit Date:

Persons involved in summary rating decisions:

Name Role Name Role

Identify supporting evidence for thinking about the child’s functioning in the three outcome areas and closely related areas (as indicated by assessments and observations from individuals in close contact with the child).

Child Outcome Area Dates Sources of information Summary of Relevant Evidence I. POSITIVE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL SKILLS

(Including social relationships) Relating with adults Relating with other children Following rules related to groups

or interacting with others (if older than 18 months)

II. ACQUIRING AND USING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (Including communication, language and early literacy)

Thinking, reasoning, remembering, & problem solving

Understanding symbols Understanding the physical &

social worlds

III. TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTIONS TO MEET NEEDS

Taking care of basic needs (e.g., showing hunger, dressing, feeding, toileting)

Contributing to own health & safety (e.g., follows rules, assists with hand washing, avoids inedible objects)

Getting from place to place (mobility) and using tools (e.g., forks, pencils, strings attached to objects)

12

The two COSF questions

a. To what extent does this child show age-appropriate functioning, across a variety of settings and situations, on this outcome? (Rating: 1-7)

b. Has the child shown any new skills or behaviors related to [this outcome] since the last outcomes summary? (Yes-No)

13

14

OSEP Reporting Categories

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

nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

c. Improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

d. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

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

15

Must have 2 data points to calculate progress

Calculations are done at the state level using an analytic calculator developed by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO)

    Entry       Exit             Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3

ID Program Date Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Date Outcome 1 Progress Outcome 2 Progress Outcome 3 Progress OSEP Category OSEP Category OSEP Category

###### 7 7 7 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y e e e

###### 2 3 2 ###### 3 Y 3 Y 4 Y c b c

###### 3 3 3 ###### 4 Y 5 Y 5 Y c c c

###### 5 4 5 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y d d d

###### 6 4 7 ###### 7 Y 7 Y 7 Y e d e

###### 6 5 7 ###### 5 Y 4 Y 6 y b b e

The “a” category

16

a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning Children who acquired no new skills or regressed

during their time in the program Didn’t gain or use even one new skill Children with degenerative conditions/ significant

disabilities

17

Entry Exit

18

Entry Exit

The “b” category

19

b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers Children who acquired new skills but continued to

grow at the same rate throughout their time in the program

Gained and used new skills but did not increase their rate of growth or change their growth trajectories while in services

20

Entry Exit

21

Entry Exit

The “c” category

22

c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it Children who acquired new skills but accelerated their

rate of growth during their time in the program Made progress toward catching up with same aged

peers but were still functioning below age expectations when they left the program

Changed their growth trajectories --“narrowed the gap”

23

Entry Exit

The “d” category

24

d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

Children who were functioning below age expectations when they entered the program but were functioning at age expectations when they left

Started out below age expectations, but caught up while in services

25

Entry Exit

The “e” category

26

e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Children who were functioning at age expectations

when they entered the program and were functioning at age expectations when they left

Entered the program at age expectations and were still up with age expectations at exit

27

Entry Exit

28

Entry Exit

29

A B C D E

2006-2007 (n=30) 7 7 23 33 30

2007-2008 (n=450) 3 13 19 29 36

2008-2009 (n=762) 2 10 17 30 40

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #1 Positive Social-Emotional Skills

Perc

en

tage

30

A B C D E

2006-2007 (n=30) 7 13 30 23 27

2007-2008 (n=450) 2 16 26 36 20

2008-2009 (n=762) 1 14 23 45 18

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

42.5

Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #2 – Acquiring & Using Knowledge &

Skills

Perc

en

tage

31

A B C D E

2006-2007 (n=30) 3 3 17 17 60

2007-2008 (n=450) 2 10 12 22 54

2008-2009 (n=762) 1 7 11 27 55

5

15

25

35

45

55

Progress Data Comparison by YearOutcome #3 – Takes Appropriate Action to Meet

Needs

Perc

nta

ge

The Summary Statements32

Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

33

Summary Statement #1

Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

In other words… How many children changed growth trajectories during their time in the program?

Percent of the children who made greater than expected gains, made substantial increases in their rates of growth, i.e. changed their growth trajectories.

Formulac+da+b+c+d

34

Summary Statement #2

The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

In other words… How many children were functioning within the bounds of age expectations when they left the program?

Percent of the children who were functioning at age expectations in this outcome area when they exited the program, including those who:•started out behind and caught up 9”d”)•Entered and exited at age level (“e”)

Formulad+ea+b+c+d+e

Where do the #s come from? – Summary Statement Calculator

35

36

Wisconsin’s Data

Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3

2006-2007 81 72.7 83.3

2007-2008 75 77.3 74.4

2008-2009 79.6 81.9 83.2

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

Summary Statement #1

Perc

enta

ges

37

Wisconsin’s Data

Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3

2006-2007 63.3 50 76.7

2007-2008 64.7 55.6 75.8

2008-2009 70.3 62.5 81.4

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

Summary Statement #2

Perc

enta

ge

38

What Does This Mean for Outcome #1 – Positive Social-Emotional Skills?

1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 79.6% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

2. 70.3% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

39

What Does This Mean for Outcome #2 – Acquisition & Use of Knowledge & Skills?

1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 81.9% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

2. 62.5% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

40

What Does This Mean for Outcome #3 – Use Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs?

1. Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, 83.2% substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

2. 81.4% of preschool children were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

41

2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 2009-2010 (n=203)

Outcome #1 81 75 79.6 70.8

Outcome #2 72.7 77.3 81.9 79.8

Outcome #3 83.3 74.4 83.2 82.7

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

Part B Summary Statement #1 Comparison by Year

Perc

en

tage

42

2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 2009-2010 (n=203)

Outcome #1 63.3 64.7 70.3 62.1

Outcome #2 50 55.6 62.5 57.6

Outcome #3 76.7 75.8 81.4 80.3

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

Part B Summary Statement #2 Comparison by Year

Perc

en

tage

43

Target Setting Considerations

Target for 2009-2010 may be lower than, equal to, or higher than the baseline

Target for 2010-2011 must be higher than the baseline

44

Lower Target First Year Stay the Same First Year

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 79.6 75 80.6

7.B. 81.9 80 82.9

7.C. 83.2 79 84.2

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 79.6 79.6 80.6

7.B. 81.9 81.9 82.9

7.C. 83.2 83.2 84.2

Three Options to Consider – Summary Statement #1

Higher Target First Year

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 79.6 80.6 81.6

7.B. 81.9 82.9 83.9

7.C. 83.2 84.2 85.2

45

Lower Target First Year Stay the Same First Year

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 70.3 66.4 71.3

7.B. 62.5 58.5 63.5

7.C. 81.4 77.4 82.4

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 70.3 70.3 71.3

7.B. 62.5 62.5 63.5

7.C. 81.4 81.4 82.4

Three Options to Consider – Summary Statement #2

Higher Target First Year

2008-09(Baseline)

2009-10Target

2010-11Target

7.A. 70.3 71.3 72.3

7.B. 62.5 63.5 64.5

7.C. 81.4 82.4 83.4

46

Improvement Activities Impacting Outcomes

ImmediateData quality

Enhanced use of Child Outcomes Fidelity Self Assessment

Professional development Web-based training modules including video of team

decision making processFocused data-driven technical assistanceVery Near FutureIncreased data analysisConnecting the data to practices (FRII)