Early Childhood Transition Indicators

1
Early Childhood Transition Indicators

• C-8 and B-12

2
Indicator C-8a IFSPs with transition steps and
services

• Requirements for LES
• Informal discussions regarding the transition
  process occur with the family throughout the time
  the child receives services with Early Steps
• Share options for services after 3rd birthday
• Update IFSP Form I to include steps to be taken
  to support the transition of the child

3
Indicator C-8b Notification to the LEA if the
child is potentially eligible

• Requirements for LES
• Provide opt-out notice to family regarding
  notification
• Provide written Notification to LEA by 27 months
  of age, or as soon as possible for those children
  found eligible for Part C after 27 months
• For families who do not opt-out, Notification
  must include childs name, date of birth, and
  parent contact information (PII)
• For families who opt-out, Notification includes
  childs zip code and birth month

4
Indicator C-8c Timely transition conference

• Requirements for LES
• Schedule transition conference, invite LEA with
  parent consent
• Hold transition conference not less than 90 days
  and not more than nine months prior to the
  childs third birthday or as soon as possible for
  those children found eligible for Part C after 33
  months of age
• ALSO
• Participate in placement/IEP meeting if invited
  and available

5
Indicator B-12

• Requirements for LEA -
• Process in place to receive and review
  notification information
• Attend transition conference
• Conduct needed evaluations determine eligibility
• Develop IEP on or before the childs third
  birthday, if child is eligible
• Ensure that parents are aware that at their
  request, Early Steps service coordinator must be
  invited to the initial IEP meeting

6
Indicator B-12

• How is it decided which children are included in
  the verification activity?
• Children who turned 3 in 2007-08 and are reported
  by Early Steps to be transitioning
• Match children with data from Survey 5
• Match children with data from Survey 2
• Send CD to the district to verify data
• Information found in Calculation Guide

7
Indicator B-12

• New codes for the upcoming verification activity
• Search and destroy all previous codes and copies
  of previous activity
• Conduct verification activity twice
• November using Survey 5 data
• December/January using Survey 2 data

8
Indicator B-12
9
Indicator B-12

• Correction of Noncompliance
• Every district lt 100 compliance must correct
  their noncompliance
• Three opportunities to demonstrate compliance
• Will report on children in a defined window of
  time
• Once substantial compliance (95 or higher) is
  demonstrated, noncompliance is considered
  corrected

10
Indicator B-12

• Targeted districts/Fab Five
• Five districts and corresponding LES
• Targeting based on multiple factors
• NECTAC and SERRC are assisting with this pilot
  program
• Completing problem-solving activity and
  implementing strategies to improve compliance

11
The Child Outcomes Indicator

• Indicators C-3 and B-7

12
SPP Child Outcomes Indicator for Part C and 619

• Percent of children with IFSPs or 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)
• Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their
  needs.
• Reference to early literacy only in Part B
  Preschool

12
12
13
Key Decisions Regarding the Child Outcomes
Measurement System

• Birth-to-five system
• Data collected at two points in time entry and
  exit
• Shared data point for C to B children
• School districts and LES collaborate on shared
  data point
• Single assessment instrument -Battelle
  Developmental Inventory 2nd Edition (BDI-2)

14
Key Decisions Regarding the Child Outcomes
Measurement System

• LES and districts phased-in over time
• All children included at entry
• Possible implementation of sampling at exit in 14
  largest districts (but not in FFY 2008-09)

15
Key Decisions Regarding the Child Outcomes
Measurement System

• Mined existing assessment data from select
  Early Adopters beginning in Spring 2006
• Provided training and initiated collection of
  data from all Early Adopters beginning March
  2007
• Initiated Phase Two in October 2007
• Initiated Phase Three in April 2008
• Coming soon
• Phase 4 November 2008
• Phase 5 March 2009

16
Key Decisions Regarding the Child Outcomes
Measurement System

• Who are the children in the measurement system?
• Infants and toddlers eligible for Early Steps who
  have an IFSP
• Eligible preschool children with disabilities
  with IEPs (regardless of whether or not they were
  in Early Steps)
• States are not required to collect data on
  children who will not be in the program for six
  months.

17
How we have supported this effort

• Purchase of BDI-2 assessment materials
• Meetings with key leaders in advance of BDI-2
  training
• Have provided training on the administration and
  scoring of the BDI-2 (over 600 individuals
  trained to date)
• Developed a common system that programs and
  districts have used to submit data
• Created brochure for parents

18
Recent Change

• Have permitted the use of the BDI-2 screener on
  entry and exit for -
• Children receiving speech only services when
  results of all domains in the typical range
• See Memorandum dated July 14, 2008

19
On the horizon

• Train-the-trainer training
• Tentative date December 3rd and 4th
• Will include materials for FL trainers to use
  when they conduct future trainings, including
  video clips of the actual administration of items
  to children
• Use of Riverside Publishing Companys Web-based
  Data Manager program to manage BDI-2 data
  collected for the child outcomes measurement
  system

20
Child Outcomes Reporting Categories

• For each outcome area we must report
• of children who did not improve functioning
• of children who improved functioning but not
  sufficient to move nearer to functioning
  comparable to same-aged peers
• of children who improved functioning to a level
  nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
• of children who improved functioning to reach a
  level comparable to same-aged peers
• of children who maintained functioning at a
  level comparable to same-aged peers
• Reporting requirements the same for Part C and
  Part B Preschool

20
21
Key Decisions Left to States

• Exact interpretation of the meaning of the
  sub-indicators
• Use of a single instrument vs. multiple
  instruments
• Choice of measurement instrument(s)
• Definition of what constitutes functioning
  comparable to same-aged peers, nearer to
  same-aged peers, etc.
• Data collected on all children or on a sample of
  children

22
Child Outcomes Reporting Requirements

• 2/1/07 data on status upon entry for children
  entering in 2005-2006
• 2/1/08 progress from entry to exit or other
  naturally occurring point near exit (such as IEP
  review) for children who have received services
  for 6 months or more
• 2/1/09 progress from entry to exit
• 2/1/10 progress from entry to exit PLUS baseline
  and targets

22
23
619 Results for FY 07-08
23
24
619 Results for FY 07-08
24
25
619 Results for FY 07-08
25
26
ES Results for FY 07-08
26
27
ES Results for FY 07-08
27
28
ES Results for FY 07-08
28
29
What else do the results tell us?
29
30
What else do the results tell us?

• The DQs of children who began services at levels
  of social-emotional development below those of
  their same-age peers ranged from 55 (the lowest
  possible DQ) to 79 (the highest score that is
  considered below typical), with a mean of about
  68.
• On exit, these children had DQs ranging from 55
  to 123, with a mean of about 80.

30
31
What else do the results tell us?

• The difference from entry to exit, across
  children, ranged from a loss of 12 points to a
  gain of 52 points, with an average change of
  almost 12 standard score points.

31
32
What else do the results tell us?

• Based on these data, one can say that on average,
  children in Florida who entered the preschool
  special education program at a level below that
  of their typically developing peers made gains of
  almost .8 of a standard deviation in the area of
  social-emotional development.

32
33
Contact Information

• Cathy Bishop
• Cathy.Bishop_at_fldoe.org
• Batya Elbaum
• Elbaum_at_miami.edu
• Sally Golden-McCord
• Sally_Golden-McCord_at_doh.state.fl.us
• Marilyn Hibbard
• Marilyn.Hibbard_at_fldoe.org