Wisconsin's Child Outcomes and Reporting Requirements

Wisconsin's Children Moving Forward Wisconsin's Children Moving Forward OSEP Child Outcomes Target Setting For Indicator #7 Child Outcomes WDPI Stakeholder Group December 16, 2009 Ruth Chvojicek Statewide Child Outcomes Coordinator 1

Goals for today 2 Review Indicator 7 data Set targets for two summary statements for each of the three child outcomes

Indicator #7 Child Outcomes 3 Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. 1. 2. 3.

Basic Reporting Requirements 4 Districts determine child s level of functioning using a 7-point scale and report entry and exit data to the state New State tabulates data from 5 progress categories into 2 summary statements and reports to OSEP State converts the data to 5 progress categories and reports to OSEP

Data Timeline 5 Small Pilot 16 Districts Children who entered services April 1 June 30, 2006 20005- 2006 Began sampling Districts in 2006-2007 Self- Assessment Cycle 2006 2007 Districts in 2007-2008 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample February 2008 APR reported all children who exited 2006-2007 Progress data 2007-2008 Districts in 2008-2009 Self-Assessment Cycle joined sample February 2009 APR reported all children who exited in 2007-2008 Progress data 2008-2009

Data Timeline 6 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 2009-2010 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 2010 - 2011 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 2011 - 2012

Wisconsins 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 7

Wisconsins 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.

Three Child Outcomes 9 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

Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) 10 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

Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) Child Outcome Summary Form(1 of 3) Date Form Completed: Child Information Name: Entry Ratingor Exit Rating (Check One) Entry Date: Exit Date: Date of Birth: Persons involved in summary rating decisions: Name 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 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 the physical & social worlds Role Name Role Summary of Relevant Evidence Understanding symbols 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) 11

The two COSF questions 12 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

OSEP Reporting Categories 14 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 d. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers e. Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same- aged peers

Must have 2 data points to calculate progress 15 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 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 16

Entry Exit 17

Entry Exit 18

The b category 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 19

Entry Exit 20

Entry Exit 21

The c category 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 22

Entry Exit 23

The d category 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 24

Entry Exit 25

The e category 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 26

Entry Exit 27

Entry Exit 28

Progress Data Comparison by Year Outcome #1 Positive Social-Emotional Skills 40 35 30 25 Percentage 20 15 10 5 0 A 7 3 2 B 7 13 10 C 23 19 17 D 33 29 30 E 30 36 40 2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 29

Progress Data Comparison by Year Outcome #2 Acquiring & Using Knowledge & Skills 45 40 35 30 Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 A 7 2 1 B 13 16 14 C 30 26 23 D 23 36 45 E 27 20 18 2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 30

Progress Data Comparison by Year Outcome #3 Takes Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 60 50 40 Percntage 30 20 10 0 A 3 2 1 B 3 10 7 C 17 12 11 D 17 22 27 E 60 54 55 2006-2007 (n=30) 2007-2008 (n=450) 2008-2009 (n=762) 31

The Summary Statements 32 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.

Summary Statement #1 33 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. Formula c+d a+b+c+d

Summary Statement #2 34 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 ) Formula d+e a+b+c+d+e

Where do the #s come from? Summary Statement Calculator 35

Wisconsins Data 36 Summary Statement #1 84 82 80 78 Percentages 76 74 72 70 68 66 Outcome #1 81 75 79.6 Outcome #2 72.7 77.3 81.9 Outcome #3 83.3 74.4 83.2 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Wisconsins Data 37 Summary Statement #2 90 80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Outcome #1 63.3 64.7 70.3 Outcome #2 50 55.6 62.5 Outcome #3 76.7 75.8 81.4 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

What Does This Mean for Outcome #1 Positive Social-Emotional Skills? 38 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. 1. 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.

What Does This Mean for Outcome #2 Acquisition & Use of Knowledge & Skills? 39 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. 1. 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.

What Does This Mean for Outcome #3 Use Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs? 40 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. 1. 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.

Part B Summary Statement #1 Comparison by Year 84 82 80 78 76 Percentage 74 72 70 68 66 64 2006-2007 (n=30) 81 72.7 83.3 2007-2008 (n=450) 75 77.3 74.4 2008-2009 (n=762) 79.6 81.9 83.2 2009-2010 (n=203) 70.8 79.8 82.7 Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3 41

Part B Summary Statement #2 Comparison by Year 90 80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006-2007 (n=30) 63.3 50 76.7 2007-2008 (n=450) 64.7 55.6 75.8 2008-2009 (n=762) 70.3 62.5 81.4 2009-2010 (n=203) 62.1 57.6 80.3 Outcome #1 Outcome #2 Outcome #3 42

Target Setting Considerations 43 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

Three Options to Consider Summary Statement #1 44 Stay the Same First Year Lower Target First Year 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 2010-11 Target 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 79.6 81.9 83.2 2010-11 Target 80.6 82.9 84.2 7.A. 79.6 7.B. 81.9 7.C. 83.2 7.A. 79.6 7.B. 81.9 7.C. 83.2 75 80 79 80.6 82.9 84.2 Higher Target First Year 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 80.6 82.9 84.2 2010-11 Target 81.6 83.9 85.2 7.A. 79.6 7.B. 81.9 7.C. 83.2

Three Options to Consider Summary Statement #2 45 Stay the Same First Year Lower Target First Year 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 66.4 58.5 77.4 2010-11 Target 71.3 63.5 82.4 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 70.3 62.5 81.4 2010-11 Target 71.3 63.5 82.4 7.A. 70.3 7.B. 62.5 7.C. 81.4 7.A. 70.3 7.B. 62.5 7.C. 81.4 Higher Target First Year 2008-09 (Baseline) 2009-10 Target 71.3 63.5 82.4 2010-11 Target 72.3 64.5 83.4 7.A. 70.3 7.B. 62.5 7.C. 81.4

Improvement Activities Impacting Outcomes 46 Immediate Data quality Enhanced use of Child Outcomes Fidelity Self Assessment Professional development Web-based training modules including video of team decision making process Focused data-driven technical assistance Very Near Future Increased data analysis Connecting the data to practices (FRII)