Florida’s Part B Child Outcomes Results

FY 2013-14State PreK Contacts Meeting

February 3, 2015

Total matched records after duplicates resolved   11,395

Level 1 Exclusion

s

Datapoint not permissable 0 11,395Out of range scores 0 11,395Do not have valid assessments in all 3 required domains 401 10,994Less than 3 months between entry and exit assessment 22 10,972Entry assessment completed at 30 months or less 55 10,917Exit assessment completed at less than 39 months 0 10,917Total exclusions 478  Total records included in final FY13-14 data set   10,917

Summary of APR Records

71% male Average of 19.3 months between entry and exit Entry assessment was conducted at a range of

ages but primarily around 36 months

Overview of Children Included in the APR Report

  Outcome ABDI-2

Personal-social Domain

Outcome BBDI-2

Communication Domain

Outcome CBDI-2

AdaptiveDomain

OSEP Categories n % n % n % a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning

238 2.2 318 2.9 276 2.5b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

1,366 12.5 2,232 20.4 1,796 16.5

c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach

471 4.3 961 8.8 363 3.3

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

2,404 22.0 3,456 31.7 2,040 18.7

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

6,438 59.0 3,950 36.2 6,442 59.0

Total N=10,917 100% N=10,917 100% N=10,91

7 100%

    Outcome APersonal-

social

Outcome BCommunicatio

n

Outcome CAdaptive

   N

SS#1%

SS#2%

SS#1%

SS#2%

SS#1%

SS#2%

FY 2013-14

10,917

64.2 81.0 63.4 67.8 53.7 77.7

Indicator 7 Percentages FY 2013-14

Longitudinal Trends

    Outcome APersonal-social

Outcome BCommunication

Outcome CAdaptive

   N

SS#1%

SS#2%

SS#1%

SS#2%

SS#1%

SS#2%

09-10 3,549 70.6 84.1 65.6 64.4 60.7 80.810-11 8,161 67.1 82.8 65.3 67.8 57.8 80.111-12 10,890 63.3 82.0 63.5 68.2 54.2 79.412-13 11,285 63.1 81.9 63.4 68.4 54.9 79.013-14 10,917 64.2 81.0 63.4 67.8 53.7 77.7

Summary Statement Percentages FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14

Summary Statement #1

Outcome A

Outcome B

Outcome C

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14

Summary Statement #2

Outcome A

Outcome B

Outcome C

Global Outcomes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ANY C/D/E

ALL C/D/E

ANY D/E

ALL D/E

Variability Across Districts

OSEP Outcome A by District

0102030405060708090

100

SS#1Personal-Social

OSEP Outcome B by District

0102030405060708090

100

SS#1Communication

0102030405060708090

100

SS#1Adaptive

OSEP Outcome C by District

OSEP Outcome A by District

0102030405060708090

100

SS#2Personal-Social

OSEP Outcome B by District

0102030405060708090

100

SS#2Communication

0102030405060708090

100

SS#2Adaptive

OSEP Outcome C by District

Indicator 7 (Outcome A) Percentages Compared Against Severe Delay Percentages at Entry

n = 989 n = 425 n = 738 n = 11880

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Severe delay at entry (Personal-Social)SS#1SS#2

Indicator 7 (Outcome B) Percentages Compared Against Severe Delay Percentages at Entry

n = 425 n = 738 n = 1188 n = 9890

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Severe delay at entry (Commu-nication)SS#1SS#2

Indicator 7 (Outcome C) Percentages Compared Against Severe Delay Percentages at Entry

n = 425 n = 738 n = 1188 n = 9890

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Severe delay at entry (Adaptive)SS#1SS#2

Targets

Outcome A BDI-2

Personal-social Domain

Outcome B BDI-2

Communication

Domain

Outcome C BDI-2

Adaptive

Domain

  SS#1 SS#2 SS#1 SS#2 SS#1 SS#2

Data (2,875/4,479) 64.2%

(8,842/10,917) 81.0%

(4,417/6,967) 63.4%

(7,406/10,917) 67.8%

(2,403/4,475) 53.7%

(8,482/10,917) 77.7%

Target 63.6% 82.4% 63.9% 68.9% 55.4% 79.5%Target Met? Yes No No No No No

Indicator 7 PercentagesCompared Against Targets

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #1Outcome A

Outcome A - Actual Data Outcome A - Target

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #1Outcome B

Outcome B - Actual Data Outcome B - Target

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #1Outcome C

Outcome C - Actual Data Outcome C - Target

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #2Outcome A

Outcome A - Actual Data Outcome A - Target

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #2Outcome B

Outcome B - Actual Data Outcome B - Target

5055606570758085

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Summary Statement #2Outcome C

Outcome C - Actual Data Outcome C - Target

Bjorn Lomborg, interviewed recently on the Freakonomics podcast hosted by Stephen Dubner, discussed how he and his group of economists and other social scientists helped the U.N. develop targets for the second set of Millenium Goals.

They started with169 proposed targets within more than a dozen major categories such as poverty, famine, climate change, and sustainable industrialization. Too many goals!

What Freakonomics might teach us about achieving our targets

So Lomborg and his group rated each goal based on three criteria: cost, reality of achievement, and impact.

Only a dozen goals were given top rating by Lomborg’s group. They were goals that people already had solutions for; that could be widely implemented at fairly low cost; and that could be expected to have a very significant impact.

What Freakonomics might teach us about achieving our targets

Applying Lomborg’s reasoning to improving outcomes for preschool children with disabilities, some questions we might ask ourselves could be:

What do we already know about improving children’s social relationships, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs?

What can we do within current resources? What changes in current practice will have

the greatest impact on children?

What Freakonomics might teach us about achieving our targets