Upload
helena-paulina-lawson
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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
Citation preview
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