Nissan Bar Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Joanne Huston, Phil Knobel, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, Don Rosin, Jan Serek, Mary Skadahl, Bonnie Vander Meulen, and Joan Wade
Stakeholders Participation via GoToMeeting: Brian Anderson, Carol Noddings-Eichinger, and Patricia Yahle
Ann Bailey, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC).
Indicator 7 Targets, Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table, Progress Report on State Performance Plan Indicators
Indicator 7 Preschool Outcomes – Ruth Chvojicek, CESA 5 – Statewide Child Outcomes Coordinator
- Target setting for Indicator 7 Child Outcomes (PowerPoint)
- It is permissible for states to use sampling when collecting data for this indicator, as long as all districts are included at least once during the SPP cycle. With stakeholder input, WDPI choose to include Indicator 7 as a sampling indicator. OSEP has approved Wisconsin’s sampling plan.
- The definition of “exit” includes a child has moved out of the district, turned age 6, or exited special education. An LEA reports on their cohort of children until all have exited early childhood special education; this could be up to three years. As the number of districts reporting continues to increase, the State’s data will be more robust.
- LEAs may use the exit status rating from Birth to 3 Program as the LEA’s entry status rating for a child. This information is available through the Program Participation System (PPS) when children are transitioning from Part C to B. This can be discussed as a part of the local interagency agreement.
- Annually, DPI and DHS provide child outcomes data collection training and technical assistance to Birth to 3 Programs and LEAs. Program Support Teachers are trained and provide ongoing technical assistance to LEAs. Materials are posted on the DPI website and collaborating partners.com. Data is due September 1 each year. Additional technical assistance is provided if LEAs do not report timely. Our primary emphasis has been on accurate and timely data reporting; use of data to improve outcomes will be the next priority.
- Definitions of progress categories.
- Preliminary baseline data was reviewed with Stakeholders (see chart below).
- Any new data collection requires time before the data is considered valid and reliable.
- Indicator 7 Progress Data Comparison by CESA and Milwaukee – see handout.
- Data analysis: Category “a” should be 2% or less of the population. Category “d” tends to be children with only speech and language services.
- Stakeholders considered setting the targets lower than the baseline data (because the data may not be reliable), keeping them the same (because we have collected progress data for three years and we can adjust our targets next year), or increasing the targets (because we want to send a strong message that improvement is desired).
- Using a consensus approach, Stakeholders set targets for Outcome A.1., A.2, B.1., C.1, and C.2. Consensus could not be reached on Outcome B.2.; DPI will set the target for this outcome after consideration of the Stakeholders’ input.
- For 2009-2010 targets, Stakeholders advised that each target should increase by two-tenths percent (.2%) from the baseline, except for Outcome B, statement 2 because it is so much lower than the other outcomes. For 2010-11 targets, Stakeholders advised that if the baseline is less than 80, the targets should be set at .2% increase; if 80 or above, the targets should be .1% increase (see chart below for baseline and targets).
|Summary Statements||Baseline Data FFY 2008||Targets FFY 2009 (% of children)||Targets FFY 2010 (% of children)|
|Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)|
|1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program||79.6%||79.8%||80%|
|2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they exited the program||70.3%||70.5%||70.7%|
|Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)|
|1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program||81.9%||82.1%||82.2%|
|2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they exited the program||62.5%||TBD||TBD|
|Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs|
|1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program||83.2%||83.4%||83.5%|
|2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they exited the program||81.4%||81.6%||81.7%|
Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table – Ann Bailey (PowerPoint, Measurement Table)
- States are not required to report on Indicators 13 or 14, due to changes in the indicators.
- Must report on Indicator 4B in 2009 APR.
Indicator 1 Change in Target – Eva Kubinski, DPI Consultant (PowerPoint, Resources, AYP Primer)
- Wisconsin is required to align the graduation targets in our State Performance Plan with the targets established under No Child Left Behind.
- The new target is 80%, which is lower than the previous target.
State Performance Plan 2008 Executive Summary – Danielle Scott, DPI Consultant (Executive Summary, APR Summary Table)
- State has met the indicator targets or made progress in most areas.
- All compliance indicators were met.
- Great progress has been made on Indicator 12, thanks to the collaborative efforts with the Department of Health Services, the new Program Participation System, and various technical assistance opportunities for LEAs and County Programs.
- The Focused Review of Improvement Indicators is a new process under development at DPI to address the improvement indicators. FRII will scale-up the success of Focused Monitoring to have statewide impact. Districts will analyze data and develop improvement plans to address needs. (PowerPoint).
Ann Bailey commended DPI’s preparation for the OSEP verification visit. The State is awaiting the OSEP verification report.