Trends in Early Childhood Special Education ECSE

1
Trends in Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)

• Collaboration with the Wider Early Childhood
  World

Joicey Hurth, Associate Director, NECTAC 10-31-06
2
Current Impetus for Expanding Collaborative Early
Childhood Initiatives

• Good Start Grow Smart- Bush Administrations
  initiative to strengthen Head Start, partner with
  states to improve early learning and widely
  disseminate information about early learning
• 2004 Policy Forums on Young Children and
  Inclusion, including Child Care Bureau, the
  Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the
  Office of Head Start and the Office of Special
  Education Programs

3
Collaborative Projects

• Expanding Opportunities is a cross agency
  strategic planning initiative with the goal to
  improve inclusive opportunities for young
  children with disabilities and their families
• 8 States IA, FL, AZ, MT, DE, WI, ID, TN
• Smart Start, an EC initiative with state
  oversight, training and TA Structured with state
  and local partnerships Based on local
  partnership strategic plans addressing
  infrastructure, exiting programs and local needs
  Used as a vehicle for promoting higher quality
  care, creating new child care spaces, and
  providing child care subsidies
• 7 States AZ, IA SC, AL, TN, OK, CO
• The MCH Early Comprehensive Systems Grant Program
  to build coordinated early childhood early
  childhood services supported by collaborative
  state infrastructures
• All but one state several territories

4
Current Trends and Directions in Preschool
Special Education
5
Collaborative Early Childhood (EC) Structures for
Governance

• All EC programs including 619 are co-located,
  often in a separate EC governance structure,
  (ie., office, department or Governors Council,
  etc)
• 10 states
• AZ, CT, IL, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, NC, OH,

Data Source Section 619 Profile. May 2006 ,
NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http//www.nectac.o
rg/
6
Expanding Pre-Kindergarten Initiatives Provide
Opportunities for Inclusion

• State Funded Pre-K for Children at-risk 33
  states
• Locally funded Pre-K 26 States
• Title 1 Pre- K 26 states
• Pre-K Early Reading Programs 23 states
• Universal Program for 4 year olds GA, OK

Data Source Section 619 Profile. May 2006 ,
NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http//www.nectac.o
rg/
7
Collaboratively Developed EC standards apply to
all children, including children with
disabilities

• 39 states
• AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IL,
  IN, KS, KY, LA,MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC,NE,
  NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT,
  WA, WI , WV, WY

Data Source Section 619 Profile. May 2006 ,
NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http//www.nectac.o
rg/
8
Shared EC Standards are Basis for Reporting
Progress on Child Outcomes

• States report childrens progress on standards
  and outcomes
• CO, KY, MD, OR (others under development)

Data source ECO Center http//www.fpg.unc.edu/
ECO/
9
Single Blended Certification for EC ECSE

• 16 States
• CO, CT, FL, IA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MA, NC, OK, PA,
  RI, TN WI, WV

Data Source Section 619 Profile. May 2006 ,
NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http//www.nectac.o
rg/
10
11 States with an Education Lead for Part C and
619

• CNMI, GU, IA, ME, MD, MO, OK, OR, TN
• Birth Mandate States - Provides Free Appropriate
  Public Education (FAPE) for children with
  disabilities aged birth 5)
• MI, MN, NE (co-lead with HHS), SD
• Not a new trend, but a legacy for some states
  that had legislated services for infants under
  Special Education before PL 99-457 created the
  Infant and Toddler Program

Data Source Part C Updates. July 2006 , NECTAC,
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center,
UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http//www.nectac.org/
11
The Data Group Asked for Information on
Governance Service Delivery From States That
are Effective and Efficient

• State performance varies tremendously, given the
  indicator or dimension of interest
• For Example The same state may have a great
  track record of providing services in inclusive
  settings, but have a poorly developed data or
  monitoring system and inadequate data on
  timeliness of service provision, or transition,
  etc
• Therefore we looked for states that are leading
  some of the EC trends, evidence of performance
  across available information and states with
  demographic similarities to ME

12
Some Disclaimers

• State Performance Plans, submitted 2006, were a
  new OSEP requirement
• For the first time, states had to report on the
  same indicators of performance and compliance,
  using the same measurements, and setting
  improvement targets
• Many states found they had inadequate data and or
  data with questionable reliability to report for
  some indicators
• We can expect performance measures to improve in
  the Annual Performance Reports and be a rich
  source of information about preschool special
  education

13
Selection and Profile Development Process

• Identified states with collaborative initiatives
  exemplifying current trends
• Checked performance on relevant SPP preschool
  indicators and OSEP letters to be sure there
  werent any major performance concerns
• Used the 2005 National Institute for Early
  Education Research for common data across states,
  since state sources can include very different
  data and not be comparable
• See Chart Comparison of States Data and
  Performance
• Interviewed 6 states on structures and practices
  to address some of the panels questions
• Selection implies no judgments about the overall
  performance or ranking of states by performance

14
Highlights of State Profiles

• Kentucky
• Oklahoma
• Arkansas
• Oregon
• Iowa
• Massachusetts
• (See Handouts of State Profiles)

15
States to consider

• The Data Group asked for states with similar
  demographics to Maines, which have EI and
  Special Education systems with good performance
  in effectiveness, efficiency and monitoring from
  which Maine might learn
• Looked at SPP data from Part C indicator 1
  percent of children who receive services in a
  timely manner and 2 percent of children served
  in natural environments

16
Part C SPP Performance 1 Timeliness and 2
Natural Environments (NE) (gt90)

• Timely NE
• MT 100 93
• OK 100 96
• ND 98 96
• KY 97 97
• NH 94 99
• CT 94 100
• GA 93 100
• WV 92 99
• MN 90 90

Other Profiled States Timely NE MA 89 99 OR
98 62 IA 69 95 AR no data 77
17
States Doing a Good Job of Monitoring QA

• NCSEAM identified the Big 7 components of an
  effective General Supervision system
• SPP state goals w/ measurable targets
  Effective policies and procedures Data on
  processes and results effective dispute
  resolution integrated on-site and off-site
  monitoring targeted TA professional
  development improvements, corrections,
  incentives, sanctions
• While states have effective components, its hard
  to determine overall effectiveness

18
Overall, General Supervision Going Well in the
Following States

• Part C
• MA
• NM
• NJ
• CT
• GA

• Part B
• OH
• NY
• CT
• GA

Thoughts from NCSEAM and NECTAC