the results are in: using early childhood outcome data

2011 OSEP Leadership Mega ConferenceCollaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0

The Results are In: Using Early Childhood Outcome Data

August, 2011

Kathy Hebbeler and Lynne Kahn

ECO at SRI International and ECO at UNC

What we will cover

• Quick review of the reporting requirement and state approaches

• Share the national data• Describe how the national data were

computed• Discuss the quality of the national data• Discuss the meaning of the numbers

2 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

OSEP Reporting Requirements: Child Outcomes

• Positive social emotional skills (including positive social relationships)

• Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication [and early literacy])

• Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs


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 itd. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to

same-aged peerse. Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-

aged peers


3 outcomes x 5 “measures” = 15 numbers

Illustration of 5 Possible Paths

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56

Age in Months

Sco

re

Maintained functioning comparable to age peers

Achieved functioning comparable to age peers

Moved nearer functioning comparable to age peers

Made progress; no change in trajectory

Did not make progress

The Summary Statements

1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in each outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.

2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.

6

Early Childhood Outcomes Center

State Approaches to Outcomes Data

Approach Part C (56 states/jurisdictions)

Preschool(59 states/jurisdictions)

COS 7 pt. scale 41/56 (73%) 37/59 (63%)

One tool statewide 7/56 (13%) 9/59 (15%)

Publishers’ online analysis

3/56 (5%) 6/59 (10%)

Other 5/56 (9%) 7/59 (12%)


8

Note: Based on 29 States with highest quality data

Social relationships Knowledge and skills Action to meet needs

a 0.0165481765021159 0.0148974177446063 0.0145225115393538

b 0.179791044501508 0.199542744006336 0.174681665026758

c 0.185932320590048 0.247993957138401 0.214074779812331

d 0.294138593838746 0.369311305766878 0.370708975497373

e 0.323587775084597 0.168236271568793 0.226016769460911

3%

8%

13%

18%

23%

28%

33%

38%

Estimated Data for Part C, 2009-10


9



SS1 0.70973347275746 0.742180533377054 0.755546347980436

SS2 0.61772636892334 0.537547577335669 0.596725744958282

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

Estimated Summary Statement Data for Part C, 2009-10


10


a 0.0173423475321513 0.0182367034048671 0.0164717096861928

b 0.114520004403404 0.133727833654954 0.108153036923834

c 0.281561785450637 0.32470410889358 0.208844242808853

d 0.343437919521324 0.34397760817479 0.356458315050575

e 0.243152978902516 0.179335862613809 0.310081127789363

3%

8%

13%

18%

23%

28%

33%

38%

Estimated National Data for Early Childhood Special Education, 2009-2010


Early Childhood Outcomes Center 11



SS1 0.825777563121165 0.81482333429858 0.819365394291995

SS2 0.586590898423841 0.523313470788598 0.666539442839937

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

Estimated National Summary Statements for Early Childhood Special Education, 2009-2010

Criteria for States with Quality Data

1. Low percentage of missing data

2. No odd patterns in “a” or “e” categories

3. Did not use questionable data collection methods

12Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Calculating Missing Data for Part C

Proxy for missing data =Number with data for C3/

Exiting Data (618)


• Do not expect this number to be 100%

• ..but we don’t expect it to be 10% either

Part C: Percent of Exiters included in Outcomes Data

08-09<10% = 10*10- 20% = 420- 30% = 8

30- 40% = 1140- 50% = 850- 60% = 860- 70% = 470- 80% = 2

>80% = 1

09-10<10% = 5*

10- 20% = 420- 30% = 630- 40% = 840- 50% = 5

50- 60% = 1160- 70% = 970- 80% = 1

>80% = 0*3 states are sampling for Part C. Excluded states with <28%.

Calculating Missing Data for 619

Proxy for missing data =Number with data for B7/

Child count

15

• Do not expect this number to be 100%

• ..but we don’t expect it to be 10% either

Percent of Child Count included in Outcomes Data for ECSE

08-09<10= 11*

10- 20%= 1520- 30%= 1230- 40%= 1240-50% =1>50% = 2

09-10<10= 6*

10- 20%= 1120- 30%= 1230- 40%= 1640-50% =4>50%= 0

*4 States are sampling for 619Excluded states with <12% of child count

Problem with Missing Data

• We don’t know how well the data the state has represent the entire state.

• If the data are representative, the percentages for the a to e Progress Categories and the Summary Statements won’t change as data are added on more children.

17


Early Childhood Outcomes Center18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Percent Reported in "a“ for Knowledge and Skills for ECSE by State

Exclusion criteria: a<10% in any outcomes e<65% in any outcomes

Can we trust these data?


Pattern checking for validity

• Checking across years–How do the 2009-10 compare to

the data for 2008-09?• Checking across methods

–How do the data for all states compare to states with highest quality data?

20


All states 19 best All states 29 bestFFY 08-09 FFY 09-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

64.570.2

64

71

SS1: % who IncreasedGrowth Rates

Part C, Outcome A: Social Relationships


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6761.3

64.761.8

SS2: % who Exited at Age Expectations

Part C, Outcome B: Knowledge and Skills


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8070.4

76.6

68.1

74.2

SS1: % who Increased Growth Rates


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5953.9 55.8 53.8


Part C, Outcome C: Meets Needs


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

69.7

76

68.1

75.6



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

64.660.5 61.5 59.7


Part B Preschool: Social Relationships


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

77.282.7

79.7 82.6



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

61.758.7

62.158.7


Part B Preschool: Knowledge and Skills


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

76.282.7

78.381.5



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

55.851.2

55.552.3


Part B Preschool: Meets Needs


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

75.381.6

78.181.9



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

67.8 67.2 66.7 66.7


Part C

What to these data tell us?

• Nationally, a high proportion of children who receive Part C and ECSE services are showing greater than expected progress

• Nationally, many (over half) are exiting the program functioning like same age peers in at least one of the outcomes.


Should your state data look like the national data?

• Probably not• More important that each state

continue to focus on the quality of its own data– Getting outcomes data on all children who

exit– Working with programs whose data look

unusual to address possible data quality issues

30


Supporting States in Building a Child Outcomes Measurement System

Two Frameworks

• Child Outcomes Measurement System

• Family Experiences and Outcomes Measurement System


Child Outcomes Measurement System

• The set of components a state needs to have in place to make full use of child outcomes data.

• NOT just a data system or a data collection method.


Purpose of the Framework

• Provide a common language for ECO and other TA providers to use in discussing COMSs with states.

• Provide a organizing structure of categorizing resources and state examples related to implementation of a COMS.

• Serve as the organizing structure for the state self assessment


Framework and Self-Assessment

• FRAMEWORK– Set of components and quality indicators– Provides the structure for the self-

assessment• SELF-ASSESSMENT

– Scale that provides criteria for levels of implementation within each quality indicator

– Rating assigned based on level of implementation within each indicator


Process for Framework Development

• Built off what we had learned from ECO work with states

• Literature review• Repeated discussion

and review internally and with 7 Partner States


Framework Partner States

State Part C 619

California X

Colorado X X

Delaware X X

Maine X X

Minnesota X X

New York X

Ohio X X


38

COMS Framework Components

Data Collection and Trans-

mission

Analysis Reporting Using Data

Purpose

Evaluation

Cross-system Coordination

Quality Indicator

• Provides additional detail as to what constitutes quality implementation of the component.

• 18 quality indicators across the 7 components



Purpose

Data Collection and Transmission

Analysis

Reporting

Using Data

Evaluation

Cross-System Coordination

Components Quality Indicators

Purpose

1. State has articulated purpose(s) of COMS.

Data Collection and Transmission

2. Data collection procedures are carried out efficiently and effectively.

3. Providers, supervisors, and others involved in data collection have the required knowledge, skills, and commitment.

4. State's method for entering, transmitting, and storing data is effective and efficient.

Analysis

5. State identifies accountability and program improvement questions related to child outcomes.

6. Local programs identify accountability and program improvement questions related to child outcomes.

7. State agency analyzes data in a timely manner.

8. Local programs analyze data in a timely manner.

9. State agency ensures completeness and accuracy of data.

Reporting

10. State agency interprets, reports, and communicates information related to child outcomes.

11. Local programs interpret, report, and communicate information related to child outcomes.

Using Data

12. State agency makes regular use of information on child outcomes to improve programs.

13. Local programs makes regular use of information on child outcomes to improve programs.

Evaluation14. State evaluates its COMS regularly.

Cross-system Coordination

15. Part C and 619 coordinate child outcomes measurement.

16. Child outcomes measurement is integrated across early childhood (EC) programs statewide.

17. Child outcomes measurement is aligned with state’s early learning guidelines/standards.

18. State has a longitudinal data system to link child outcomes data from EC program participation to K–12 data.

Elements

a. State has…b. State has…c. State agency..d. Representative..e. State agency…f. State ……g. State provides…h. State has..

Purpose of the Self Assessment

• Assist states in setting priorities for improving their COMS

• Provide information to assist states in advocating for resources for systems development

42

• Provide guidance to states on what constitutes a high quality child outcomes measurement system.


• Each QI has multiple elements.

• Evidence for the extent of implementation for each element is provided.

• Each element is rated as• NY = Not Yet or Don’t

know• IP = In Process, or• IF = Fully Implemented

• The QI is given a rating based on the ratings of the elements.


• Live link from the element • Describes the element• Describes what “fully

implemented looks like”• Provides examples of

what “In process” might look like

• Provides examples of how states are addressing the element

• Provides additional resources related to the element


Back-up for Each Element


The Scale for the Quality Indicators

Implementation of Elements

Quality Indicator

Score

All elements are fully implemented 7

Nearly all elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process

6

Most of the elements are fully implemented and the rest are in process.

5

At least one element is fully implemented and the rest are in process

4

All of the elements are in process 3

Some of the elements are in process 2

None of the elements are yet in process 1

46


Working with the Self Assessment


Possible Process

1. State identifies the highest priority QI(s).

2. Stakeholders convened– Priority QIs reviewed and rated– Plan developed to address elements not

yet fully implemented.– Progress reviewed with stakeholders at

regular intervals.

3. State identifies next set of QI(s), etc. 48 Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Additional information

For information on improving data quality and using data for program improvement

www.the-eco-center.org


Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes Conference, September 18-21, 2011 in New Orleans, LA

http://www.the-eco-center.org/

the results are in: using early childhood outcome data

Documents

outcomes dataapproach

outcomes data08

early childhood outcome

improved functioning

c3exiting data

highest quality datacriteria

maintained functioning

early language communication