Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes

1
Kansas Early Childhood Outcomes

• System for measuring outcomes for infants,
  toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities
• Kansas Inservice Training System
• Kansas Department of Health and Environment
• Kansas State Department of Education

2
Agenda

• Brief overview of federal requirements and what
  that means for states
• Kansas plan for meeting these requirements
• Local IT Networks/Districts timelines and
  responsibilities
• Closer look individual child rating process

3
Federal AccountabilityReporting Demonstrating
Results

• Followed an era of focusing on and measuring
  actions/activities of programs
• Funders want data to determine if a program is
  doing what it is supposed to do
• K-12 Kansas Assessments
• Head Start National Reporting System
• Early Childhood Outcomes Part C Part B -619 of
  IDEA -
• New requirement for the Annual Performance Report
  (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

4
PART Review for Part C and Part B Preschool

• Results Not Demonstrated
• Part C
• While the program has met its goal relating to
  the number of children served, it has not
  collected information on how well the program is
  doing to improve the educational and
  developmental outcomes of infants and toddlers
  served.
• Part B Preschool
• The Department has no performance information
  on preschool children with disabilities served by
  this program.
• Read more at Expectmore.gov

Early Childhood Outcomes Center
4
5
On the Road to OutcomesOSEP

• 2002 it was determined that while other IDEA
  programs were required to provide outcome data,
  no such data was available for early childhood
  programs (Part C or Part B Preschool)
• 2003 OSEP began to ask states for child outcome
  data, and at the same time funded the ECO center
• 2005-2006 OSEP revised the reporting requirements
• 2007 States required to provide baseline child
  outcome data from which targets for improvement
  will be set

6
OSEPs Responsibilities...

• Demonstrate improvement for children with
  IfSPs/IEPs
• Establish long-term, outcome-oriented
• performance objectives
• Develop a strategy to collect and
• summarize annual, national performance data
• Demonstrate national progress toward
• performance objectives

7
Guiding Principles

• Goals for children
• to function successfully in home, kindergarten
  and community
• to function at the level or nearer to the level
  of their typically developing peers
• Focus is on function
• Interrelation among areas of development
• Not based on specific developmental domains or
  discrete skills

8
The Ultimate Goal of Part C Part B Preschool

• The ultimate goal is for young children to be
  active and successful participants now and in the
  future in a variety of settings in their homes,
  in their child care, preschool or school
  programs, and in the community

http//www.fpg.unc.edu/eco/pdfs/eco_outcomes_4-13
-05.pdf
Early Childhood Outcomes Center
8
9
OSEP Guidance

• States required to collect and report outcome
  data
• One set of indicators for all children birth to 5
• Mandatory Activity - Minimal Flexibility
• Early Childhood Outcome Center Assistance
• States process may differ - end product the same

10
States ResponsibilityCollect Summarize outcome
data

• Percentage of children who
• a. Did not improve functioning.
• b. 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.improved
  developmental trajectory
• d. Improved functioning to reach a level
  comparable to same-aged peers.gap closers
• e. Maintained functioning at a level comparable
  to same-aged peers.

11
Kansas Plan

• Use a rating process instead of high stakes
  testing (Child Outcome Summary Form - COSF)
• Identify 8 Curriculum Based Assessment tools to
  be used as an anchor for the rating in
  conjunction with other evaluation information
• Create a Web Based data entry system to minimize
  other federal reporting requirements for
  Networks/Districts

12
The approved curriculum based assessments (CBAs)

• Assessment and Evaluation Programming System
  (AEPS)
• Carolina Curriculum
• Creative Curriculum
• Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP)
• High Scope Child Observation Record
• Individual Growth and Development Indicators
  (IGDIs)
• Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment
• Work Sampling System (WSS)

13
State to Feds Timeline
December 2005 Plan for measuring child
outcomes February 2007 Report status on entry
(entry data only) February 2008 1st time to
report progress data February 2009 2nd time to
report progress data February 2010 3rd time to
report progress data
14
Implications for IT Networks and School Districts

• Entry Data
• Collect information and make outcome ratings on
  each child for whom an IFSP/IEP is developed
• Enter each childs data into the Outcome Web
  System (OWS)
• Exit Data
• Collect information and make outcome ratings for
  each child who has been in the program at least 6
  months, has entry data, and is exiting the Part C
  or Part B-619.
• Enter data for each child, into the Outcome Web
  System (OWS)

15
each child
Child outcome ratings are determined and entered
into the web based system for every child with an
IFSP/IEP for whom the Infant/Toddler Network or
School District is responsible... irrespective
of the type of IFSP/IEP irrespective of where
the child receives services Child outcome ratings
are determined and entered on two occasions 1)
entry into the Kansas Part C program or entry
into the Kansas Part B program 2) exit from the
Kansas Part C program or exit from the Kansas
Part B program.
16
Early Childhood Outcomes

• The Big Picture

17
What is an early childhood outcome?

• An outcome is defined as a benefit experienced
  as a result of services and supports received.
  Thus, an outcome is neither the receipt of
  services nor satisfaction with services, but
  rather what happens as a result of services
  provided to children.
• Early Childhood Outcomes Center, April 2005

18
Outcomes are functional

• Meaningful in the context of everyday living
• Integrated series of behaviors/skills
• They are not
• a single behavior
• a sum of a series of discrete behaviors
• domains based

19
Functional outcomes

• Typical performance across settings and
  situations
• Use of skills to accomplish tasks
• Not an indication of functioning under ideal
  circumstances

20
Early childhood outcomes/ general education
curriculum

• Outcomes align with general education curriculum
  for young children
• Represents what children should know or be able
  to do across environments

21
The link between early childhood outcomes and CBA

• Given the natural link between the early
  childhood outcomes and the general curriculum,
  CBA tools are a logical choice for measuring
  performance within the outcome areas.

22
Early Childhood Outcomes

• A Closer Look

23
Elaboration of the ECO outcomes
To be active and successful participants now and
in the future in a variety of settings
Children have positive social relationships
Children acquire use knowledge skills
Relation-ships with adults
Follows group rules
Symbol use, abstract thinking
Applies knowledge
Relation-ships with peers
Knowledge of physical world culture
Practicing
Children take appropriate action to meet their
needs
Listening
Playing
Being curious
Exploring
Touching
Attending
Self-care, health safety
Masters the environment
Engaging
Persisting
Hebbeler, K. (2005). Outcomes and evidence
statements Update from the Early Childhood
Outcomes Center. Presentation at OSEPs Combined
Part C/B Data Meeting in Washington, DC. Chapel
Hill, NC Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
24
Child outcomes

• Outcome Area 1 Children have positive social
  relationships
• Outcome Area 2 Children will acquire and use
  knowledge and skills
• Outcome Area 3 Children take appropriate action
  to meet their needs

25
Outcome 1 Children have positive social
relationships (examples)

• Demonstrate attachment with significant
  caregivers
• Initiate and maintain social interactions
• Behave in a way that allows participation in a
  variety of settings and situations
• Demonstrate trust in others

26
Outcome 1 Children have positive social
relationships (continued)

• Build and maintain relationships with children
  and adults
• Regulate emotions
• Understand and follow rules
• Solve social problems

27
Outcome 2 Children will acquire and use
knowledge and skills (examples)

• Display curiosity and eagerness for learning
• Explore environment
• Explore and play with people and objects
• Engage in daily learning opportunities

28
Outcome 2 Children will acquire and use
knowledge and skills (continued)

• Use vocabulary to communicate in increasingly
  complex forms
• Learn and use new skills in play
• Acquire and use precursor skills for reading and
  math
• Demonstrate imagination and creativity in play

29
Outcome 3 Children take appropriate action to
meet their needs (examples)

• Communicate wants and needs
• Meet self care needs
• Participate in everyday routines and activities
• Use objects as tools in appropriate ways

30
Outcome 3 Children take appropriate action to
meet their needs (continued)

• Move from place to place to participate in
  everyday activities, play, and routines
• Seek help when necessary
• Follow rules related to health and safety

31
Choosing COSF Tools

32
Translating data sources to COSF

• S
• R
• I
• O
• T

• Screening Information
• Record Review of Existing Data
• Interview with
• Caregivers and Parents
• Observation in Multiple Settings
• Testing Results and Crosswalks

33
The approved curriculum based assessments (CBAs)

• Assessment and Evaluation Programming System
  (AEPS)
• Carolina Curriculum
• Creative Curriculum
• Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP)
• High Scope Child Observation Record
• Individual Growth and Development Indicators
  (IGDIs)
• Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment
• Work Sampling System (WSS)

34
Crosswalks

• The ECO Center has created crosswalks of the most
  common assessments to the 3 child outcomes
• Crosswalks give a visual indication of coverage
  of the 3 outcomes
• Crosswalks show which areas/subareas map to which
  outcome

Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
35
Outcome Ratings Key points

• Based on a variety of information, but must
  include approved CBA tool
• Provides a process for comparing against typical
  development
• Snapshot of the whole child and their functioning
  across settings
• Not split by domains

Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
36
Early Childhood Outcomes

• Rating Process At a Glance
• The Child Outcomes Summary Form

37
Why Is the Child Outcomes Summary Form Needed?

• No assessment tool measures the three outcomes
  directly
• Different programs will be using different
  assessment tools, and outcome data will need to
  be aggregated across programs

38
Features of the Child Outcomes Summary Form

• It is not an assessment tool
• It uses information from assessment tools and
  observations to get a global sense of how the
  child is doing at one point in time

39
Essential Knowledge for Completing the COSF

• Between them, team members must
• Know about the childs functioning across
  settings and situations
• Understand age-expected child development
• Understand the content of the three child
  outcomes
• Know how to use the rating scale
• Understand age expectations for child functioning
  within the childs culture
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

40
Early Childhood Outcomes

• Rating Process The Form
• The Child Outcomes Summary Form

41
The Form

• Cover page three outcome pages
• On each outcome page
• Two questions per outcome
• Space to document the basis for the rating
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

42
(No Transcript)
43
Features of the Child Outcomes Summary Form

• 7-point rating scale
• Rating is based on the childs functioning
• What the child does across settings and
  situations
• Compared with age expectations
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

44
Global goal comparison ratings

• The team making the rating needs to reach
  consensus on a number between 1 and 7.
• Descriptions are given for numbers
• 7 Completely
• 5 Somewhat
• 3 Emerging
• 1 Not Yet
• Circle 2, 4, or 6 if the childs functioning is
  in between.

Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
45
Decision Tree

46
(No Transcript)
47
Early Childhood Outcomes

• Rating Process Special Considerations
• The Child Outcomes Summary Form

48
(No Transcript)
49
Concerns That Distinguish Ratings of 7 vs. 6

• Concerns raised for which families and providers
  may want to offer extra support and strategies to
  promote development, but the area of concern is
  not a possible indicator or precursor of a
  significant developmental problem (7)
• vs.
• Developmental concernsweaknesses significant
  enough to watch closely and definitely support.
  Although age expected now, the childs
  development borders on not keeping pace with
  age-expected levels or shows early signs of
  possible developmental problems (6)
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

50
Children Who Have Only Speech Articulation
Problems

• Discussion needs to examine whether and how
  articulation difficulties are affecting the
  childs functioning with regard to each of the
  three outcomes
• Examples
• Will anyone play with him/her?
• Can others understand him/her on the playground?
  
• How does he/she convey critical needs (e.g.,
  safety needs)?
• Depending on the child, discussion could yield
  ratings of 5, 6, 7 in any of the three areas
• Ex. Outcome 3 6 vs. 7 because of potential
  impact for safety
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

51
Children Who Have Only Speech Articulation
Problems

• If the team feels confident with the initial
  evaluation information and can can adequately
  rate the child a 6 or 7 in ALL THREE OUTCOMES
  then
• The State requirement of using one of the
  identified curriculum based assessments is
  waived.
• The Infant Toddler Network / School District is
  STILL required to make a rating on all three
  outcomes, and must enter that data into the OWS
  data base.

52
Correcting for Prematurity

• The purpose of the rating is to document current
  functioning therefore no correction for
  prematurely should be made.
• At a later age, the childs functioning may show
  a higher rating, reflecting that the child has
  now caught up with age expectations
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

53
Assistive Technology and Accommodations

• Ratings should reflect the childs level of
  functioning using whatever assistive technology
  or special accommodations are present in the
  childs day-to-day settings
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

54
Implications of Considering Available Assistive
Technology in Ratings

• Children who could benefit from assistive
  technology but dont have it will get lower
  ratings
• These lower ratings do not reflect a childs
  inability as much as the fact that the child does
  not have the necessary equipment/services
• Over time, the change in ratings tells us how
  much actual difference the program makes for this
  child
• It may tell us that we could do more for some
  children
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

55
Making Exit Ratings

56
Entry Data vs Exit Data

• Entry Data
• Collect information and make rating on each child
  for whom an IFSP/IEP is developed
• Enter each childs data into the Outcome Web
  System (OWS)
• Exit Data
• Collect information and make a rating for each
  child who has been in the program at least 6
  months, has entry data, and is exiting Part C or
  Part B-619.
• Enter data for each child, into the Outcome Web
  System (OWS)

57
Exit Ratings (1b, 2b, 3b)

• Apply only if a Child Outcomes Summary Form has
  been completed previously
• Compare the childs current and past behavior
• Has the child shown any new skills or behaviors
  in the goal area since the last rating? (Yes or
  No)
• Small steps of progress count!
• Examples
• Most will select Yes
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

58
Including Parents in the Discussion

• Parent input about the childs functioning is
  critical
• Family members see the child in situations that
  professionals do not
• Need to ask family members about what the child
  does at home
• We need a way to learn what family members know
  about the child
• There is no expectation that parents will be able
  to determine whether what they are seeing is age
  appropriate
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

59
Including Parents in the Ratings Discussion

• There is no consensus around the country on
  whether parents should be included in deciding on
  the summary rating. Even parent groups dont
  agree
• Kansas is leaving this decision to IT Networks
  and School Districts, however, at the very least
  information should be collected from parents as
  one of the sources of information that lead to an
  outcome rating.
• Hebbeler, K. (2006). Using the child outcomes
  summary form. Presentation at Early Intervention
  Community in Helena Montana. Chapel Hill, NC
  Early Childhood Outcomes Center.

60
Explaining the Rating to Parents

• If parents are included in deciding on a rating,
  professionals will need to be able to explain
  this process to parents
• Even if parents are not included in deciding on a
  rating, professionals will need to be able to
  explain why the rating is being done and what it
  means
• Kansas has developed a brochure for parents. To
  get a copy contact Margy Hornback
  (mhornback_at_ksde.org) or Caroline Nelson
  (cnelson_at_kdhe.state.ks.us)

61
Important Information

• Margy Hornback mhornback_at_ku.edu
• Carolyn Nelson cnelson_at_kdhe.state.ks.us
• KITS website kskits.org under Kansas Early
  Childhood Outcomes Resources