Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates€¦ · Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates...

7/11/2014

1

Leadership ConferenceFY2015 MIS Updates

Leadership ConferenceFY2015 MIS Updates

IntroductionIntroduction

TopicsTopics

Avoiding Timely & Accurate Issues

KSSD KSSB Summer Program

Tips for Quality Reporting

KSDE Audit Reminder

Senate Bill 367

Data Dictionary updates

Next version of the MIS system

KAN_Service updates – Educator IDs

Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing

2

7/11/2014

2

Aligning Directory Programs2

Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality

Reporting MIS for participation in Gen Ed programs4

3 Changing data for PR to KG students

Aligning Directory programs

Status codes1

5 Begin year set up

3

Auto populated

by application

Upon the first entry

of the student record


Annual Status

Status codes1

First Active status of

the school year

Saved and stored in

the system4

7/11/2014

3

Entered by the user

May change if student exits or returns


Current Status

Status codes1

Current active or inactive status

5

Used in OSEP

exit report

Used for basis of

exit validation reports

Used to determine population

for Indicators

Used in verification

logic

Annual Status

Annual Status

Current Status

Current Status


Status code uses

6

7/11/2014

4

Importing

Tips for Improving Reporting QualityImporting status codes

If only inactive status listed

Report active status

consistently

Example:

Student X

IEP Record 1: Entering “E”

status

IEP Record 2:Continuing “C”

status

Contradicting active status will

result in failed imports

Students starting the year as

inactive will result in failed imports

7

Setting codes and program types will

be compared

Verification 0214 will trigger if unequal


Align directory program types to

MIS setting codes

Find out what an “All

other” directory program

represents?

Aligning Directory ProgramsAligning Directory Programs2

Recommendation:Notify USD board clerk of errors or when programs / session times change 8

7/11/2014

5

No qualifying K time

program is present in

the directory for grade

level

No KG schedule is entered

in the directory

Directory does not

list reverse mainstream

program

MIS setting

codes do not list a

“B” setting

Directory lists 4 year old at risk program

“W” setting is reported on service

line

Student in MIS is

grade KG

K time is listed on service lines

Tips for Improving Reporting QualityAligning Directory Programs

Tips for Improving Reporting QualityAligning Directory Programs

Examples of unequal matches

9

IEP services address

preschool program

F/D/L

Preschool data rolled over into

KG school year


Preschooler last year

Promoted to KG this

school year

3 Changing data for PR to KG students

10

7/11/2014

6

LRE numerator and detonator

will be unequal if services address PR program and

grade = KG. Resulting

calculation will be skewed.

Classroom type may

change to a more

inclusive environment

Class schedules

may change from 1/2 day to all

day

Daily support

may change

from 3 or 4 days to 5

days

Frequency Duration Location Grade level factor


Recommendation:Review, adjust MIS services according to new grade or building schedule & program

Example Problems with “blind” rollover

11

Para / IEP support on the

job

Tips for Improving Reporting QualityVocational / Work Study Programs

None, student works

independently in program without

support

What level of support will the student

receive?

IEP addresses student’s

participation in a vocational program

Do not enter direct service time in the MIS

Enter direct

service time in the MIS

12

7/11/2014

7

For LRE & OSEP

environments, consultation /

indirect minutes do not apply to time outside of regular class

Inaccurate reporting of

OSEP environments

Incorrect data may

not be reviewed

because no verifications

present

Unintended effect on

LRE if non-school or pull out

setting used

Additional time applied to outside or regular class

No direct SPED minutes

apply to regular class participation

Indicator 20 may come

into play



Recommendation:Identify level of IEP support before MIS data entry

What is the reporting effect?

Should pass validation

checks with proper coding

13

Tips for Improving Reporting Quality

Check directory updates for

session times and program type

accuracy

Inaccuracies requiring change

after Dec. 1 is finalized may

impact Indicator 20

Check local private /

parochial schools

Administrators and clerks should meet and confirm SPED

programs offered in each building before

the school starts

Inaccuracies requiring change

after Dec. 1 is finalized may

impact Indicator 20

Open new buildings in directory to

account for new locations

Building data

14

7/11/2014

8

Note:Designation of Primary Provider is

not required

Tips for Improving Reporting Quality

Remove providers who are not active in current year

Verify current year service

providers

Change provider

assignments to service location

Confirm Contract Provider role with

KSDE prior to designation of

Contract Provider role

Providers

15

Correct December 1 population

Timely reporting of all exits

1

2

3

Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues

Tips for using methods and tools to discover exits

16

7/11/2014

9

How?OSEP criteria removed after

OSEP submission

When? After

collection closes end of March


Counted on 12-1

but should not have

Correct December 1 population1

Verification 210

17

IEPs are exchanged

electronically for transferring

students with services

extending past the exit date,

then imported in the MIS

Students with draft IEPs that

are imported into the

MIS

Students who did receive current

year services but exit

before 12-1

Students who did

not enroll or attend

in the current school year

Prior year exits

Current year exits

Non eligible

students

Bad data sharing


Recommendation:Check current version of the Preliminary child count for outliers

Who should not have counted?

18

7/11/2014

10

How?OSEP criteria added after

OSEP submission

When? After

collection closes end of March


Should count on 12-1 but did not

Correct December 1 population1

Verification 203

19

Class time and session minutes do not align with

service lines because

directory updates reflect a change rom when the

IEP was developed

Verifications dealing with

minutes, calendars &

settings prevents the calculations

of OSEP environments

KIDS records come in

after OSEP data

submitted

New students are not

reported before

OSEP data submitted

Late data

Claimed in KIDS

Unresolved verifications

Directory and

service issues


Recommendation:Match the Preliminary child count population with your IEP program

Why did they not count?

20

7/11/2014

11

Unreported exits

from prior school year

Unresolved exit report, Listed by student

Who? Students qualifying for OSEP exit report

When? From end of school

to Sept. 15

Timely reporting of all exits 2


21

If services ceased prior year, exit

date and basis of exit is required in

prior year. If services continue, current year data must be entered

OSEP requires exits to be report in

the school year an LEA

ceases to provide services

There are no MIS

records for the student in the next school year

Services reported

as continuing though the last day of

school

Students with

active status

Student does not

return

OSEP requirements

apply

Student data (or lack there of) indicates

services ceased


Recommendation:Run provider rosters early to confirm current year case loads and summer exits

What exits are at issue?

22

7/11/2014

12


• Methods and tools to discover exitsKIDS administrators

MIS clerk

Providers /Case Manager

Caseloads & RosterReports

by provider

Update IEP program

Caseloads & RosterReports

by building

Update MIS

23


• Tips for using Methods and tools to discover exits– Attempt to discover exits several times a year

• Beginning of the school year

• Late November / early December

• End of the school year

• Many USD’s are aligning KIDS data systems with SPED data systems / IEP programs– Understand exiting requirements in KIDS is different

• Different collection cycle, not July 1 to June 30

• OSEP exits may not be KIDS exits

• KIDS exits may not be OSEP exits24

7/11/2014

13


– Examples of differences

• KIDS exit of value 22 means the student is 18-21 and still active in special education

• Revocation of service and objectives completed are not exit categories in KIDS collection

• KIDS exit type of value 99 means prior basis of exits reported are incorrect and do not apply

• KIDS exit type of value 12, long term suspension / expulsion does not apply to IDEA students

• KIDS exit type of value 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, all count as drop out in both KIDS and MIS

– Discontinued school, Unknown, GED, not known continuing

25


– Areas that may need more information

• KIDS exit of value 2 means in-state transfer & continuing– These can change to drop out if no subsequent KIDS records.

– Always record the evidence as to new LEA in the MIS

» Note: Parent / Provider word is not evidence of continuing

• KIDS exit dates are not always reliable– USD may keep students as absent long after exiting

– KIDS exit dates within the first days of school is commonly a summer exit. Use last day of school as exit date in MIS

26

7/11/2014

14

To document IEP support during the Sept. 20 collection

window for General State

Aid

In outside locations of

where public school

attendance is not taken

Pre-schoolers

PrivateParochial students

Who? Where ? Why ?

Auditing ReminderAuditing Reminder

Documenting off campus support on Sept 20

Service log documenting IEP support

was delivered per IEP service

frequency

What is required ?

27

Prepare and file NPE

claim by in KAN_Service

April 30

NPE pays ≈ $375.00

KSSD KSSB summer NPE claimsKSSD KSSB summer NPE claims

Identify potential

participants by March

Claim student in KIDS at

USD level or ask KSD / KSB to submit KIDS

record with USD central

office as funding school

KSSD KSSB summer program

28

7/11/2014

15

Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015

SSN

Current MIS Reporting

Licensed elsewhere

SSN

Educator ID

Provider Identifiers

Displayed and searchable in KAN-Service

Do not have educator ID

KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates

29


SSN

Future MIS Reporting

Licensed elsewhere

SSN

Educator ID

SSN is retired

Added to import

specifications

Kept in import

specifications


30

Provider Identifiers

7/11/2014

16


Start the Educator ID discover process

Available for district level

users in common

Authentication. Go to manage my Account to

request access. Used to search or import SSN and name to get a list of

Education IDs


31


Start the Educator ID discover process

Additional Option:Complete a data request to KSDE for a listing of Educator ID by provider


Found on the KSDE web site

under teacher

licensure, educator License Look up

32

7/11/2014

17

10 + 12Applied to calendar

Problems when the

calculation or date range

factors an odd number of

days

Field R10 = Days per

week

Determining total days of service

File import recommendationFile import recommendation

Field R12 = Frequency

Calculated value is

populated on service

line

Default value is

populated on service

line

Field R13 = Total days


33

Problem:

60 + 40 = 100

Not 101

Exampleof problem

Determining total days of service


Dates: 11 -13 - 2014

To05 – 21 – 2015101 total days

Service line 2.3 days per week,

every week= 60 total days






34

Results are potential false verifications

0199

7/11/2014

18

Populate R10, R12 & R13

before submitting data

to KSDE

Field R10 = Days per

week

Recommendation to IEP vendor


Field R12 = Frequency

1 day / 4 day2 day / 3 dayCombinations

can be determined prior

to submission

Results

Field R13 = Total days

If verifications

are generated

Application stores all R10,R12 & R13 values. Clerk can toggle on any or all service lines that do not

align with the others and reset days to potentially fix


35

Application Speed and

response time

Problem

Application functionality

KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release

Automatic update to most recent KIDS record during off hours (2 a.m.)

Remedy

Automatic loading of data upon

log in

MIS records entered may

associate to prior year KIDS records

All Students will not automatically preload. Users will search for student(s) to find desired student record(s)

Association to KIDS records

RemedyProblem

36

7/11/2014

19

User initiated

Run on single

students

Verification process

Auto-run on all

students daily at

midnight


Auto-run on batches of 5 or less

Auto-run upon

Import

Results viewed in the AM

37

NewFrequency

value

Reporting weeks per school year

Provider ID

Data rollover from one

school year to the next


Starting in FY2015

Value 99 will be available with

the FY2015 application

upgrade

If provider ID is manually

applied, then system will

retire provider SSN and use provider ID

Improved functionality

when prior year building is

closed. Options to select new

target buildings.

Weeks per year option has

been removed. It has not been used in 2 years

38

7/11/2014

20

Processing speed of the application

Report Improvements

New Import routine


Starting in FY2015

Students will not be auto

loaded upon log in. To bring up a single student, a

group or all students a

search for the set is done first

Additional data fields will

be added to December &

EOY final reports and

report wizard for

consistency

Catastrophic aid

applications can be

imported

System will auto align to most recent KIDS record. Auto correct associations

made when MIS is entered prior

to Sept 20.

Association to KIDS records

39

IEP DateStudent

name helpProvider ID

EC SPED preschool program / class re-defined

Data Dictionary UpdatesData Dictionary Updates

Starting in FY2015

Clarification to include all procedural

requirements

Gradual conversionof provider

SSN to Educator ID,

both accepted in FY2015

Term “Integrated”

removed from title as the

classroom may be 100% IEP or a blend of not more than 50%

peers.

Reminder Last name in KIDS

determines, last name in import

files. Add hyphens

or generation codes if in KIDS

last name

40

7/11/2014

21

File import specification

Total day calculation

NewFrequency

valueIndicator 20

Data Dictionary UpdatesData Dictionary Updates

Starting in FY2015

The import specification

have not changed, though an improved method is

recommended

Weeks of service has

been removed from the DD because it is

not being used. It remains in

the file specification

Change in terminology:

General Supervision –

Timely and Accurate Reporting

Value 99 applies only 1 total day

within the service date range. It is

intended for a service delivered

once per year.

41

System Redesign

Moving areas of exceptionalities from profile to

IEP page

Allow gap

New Import specifications

Next version of the MIS systemNext version of the MIS system

Remove evaluation

data

Weeks per year

New Application

Name

Provider ID

42

7/11/2014

22

Senate Bill 367Senate Bill 367

Legal Notice

Reminder: Addressing students by name or attaching files with student names in e-mails is in violation of the KSDE

security policy. Only address students by KIDS ID #

43

Senate Bill 367Senate Bill 367

• Files containing personally identifiable information can only be exchanged through the MIS collection system

44

7/11/2014

23

KSDE has received several request for child count and prevalence reports.


Child count and prevalence reports once posted on KSDE website are no longer posted.

Why ?

An internal KSDE ruling based on legislation addressing confidentiality, personally identifiable information (PII) and the

interpretation of how PII can be derived from data reports.

45

Knowing child count and prevalence of neighboring and similar size districts plus

state level is helpful to us locally.

How do I get this information?


There are 3 options.

1. Use the K-12 reports to calculate

2. Submit a data request

3. Share the information among yourselves

46

7/11/2014

24


Option 1 - Use the K-12 reports to calculate

47


Option 1 - Use the K-12 reports to calculate

(43598 + 22712) / 514103 = 12.89% 48

7/11/2014

25

5 step process1. Pick County

2. Pick USD

3.USD Statistics

4. Enrollment for target school year

5. Report format

6. click Display Report Button

49


Option 2 - Data Request

50

7/11/2014

26


Option 2 - Data Request

51


Option 3 - Data SharingThe data needed to do child count and prevalence tables can be found locally

Denominator – Sept. 20 headcount – see Option 1: from K-12 reports

Idea and gifted counts – pull from KAN_Service

52

7/11/2014

27


Option 3 - Data Sharing

53



Remove any personal identifiers54

7/11/2014

28



55


Option 4 – Central Repository

• Set up secure site to collect data from all LEAs– Establish standard file

layout with defined fields, sequence and format

– Each agency delivers their data to the site

• FTE site – files are stored on site

• Database Access

• Create a database application to process the data files– Data files are

imported into application

– Processed data can be retrieved locally

– Name a database administrator

56

7/11/2014

29

7/11/2014

1

Participants will• Understand the Indicator 6 measurement for EC/LRE

• Identify changes in the 2015 data dictionary for coding EC service settings

• Understand the Indicator 7 measurement for ECO

• Understand Indicator 12 and the NEW C to B Electronic Referral (CBER)

7/11/2014

2

Indicator 6 was• One of 20 indicators reported to the Office

of Special Education Programs annually

• A “results” indicator, meaning states set targets with stakeholder input

• Being publicly reported in 2014 for the first time in several years using new definitions of early childhood educational environments and new state targets

Indicator 6 Measurement:

A. Percent of children aged 3 ‐ 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program

B. Percent of children aged 3 ‐ 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility

7/11/2014

3

5

One of 20 indicators reported to the Office of Special Education Programs annuallyA “results” indicator, meaning states set targets with stakeholder inputBeing publicly reported in 2014 for the first time in several years using new definitions of early childhood educational environments and new state targets

• New definitions:

• Early childhood program. A program that includes at least 50 percent nondisabled children.

• Special education program. A program that includes less than 50 percent nondisabled children.

• Where majority of services are delivered

Where are the majority of special education and related services delivered?

6

What and Where?

What Program Type

•Regular early childhood program

• Special education program

•Neither regular or special education program

AND

MISCodes:B=RegularEducationEarlyChildhoodClassroomSetting,W=ReverseMainstreamECSEClassroomSetting,R=IntegratedECSEClassroomSetting

ECSEServiceDeliveryModels

Program Type Description Reg. Ed. Funding

SPED Funding

IEP Coding

Regular Education Preschool Program

Early Childhood Teacher teaches preschool class, special education services provided by Itinerant Early Childhood Special Education Teacher

EC

ECSE

B

Blended Regular Education Preschool Program

Early Childhood Teacher and Early Childhood Special Education Teacher team-teach / co-teach a class that contains both children with disabilities and children without disabilities. Less than 50% the children have IEPs.

EC

ECSE

B

Blended Regular Education Preschool Program

A Teacher who is dual certified as an Early Childhood / Early Childhood Special Education Teacher and is the teacher of a regular education classroom that includes less than 50% children with IEPs

ECSE

prorated

ECSE

Prorated

B

Reverse Mainstream Special Education

Program.

Early Childhood Special Education Teacher has a class that has 50% children with disabilities and 50% children without disabilities. Children without disabilities are not being funded by another state preschool program.

X

ECSE

W

Integrated Special Education Preschool

Program

Early Childhood Special Education Teacher teaches classroom with peer models (less than 50% children with who are typically developing).

X

ECSE

R

Special Education Preschool Program

Early Childhood Special Education Teacher teaches a special education classroom without peer model.

X

ECSE

R

Educational Environments for Children Aged 3‐5

Row Set (A) CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(A1) And receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM (A2) …and receiving the majority of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (B) CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THAN 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(B1) And receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM (B2) …and RECEIVING the majority of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (C) CHILDREN ATTENDING A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (NOT in any regular early childhood program), …

(C1) Separate Special Education Class

(C2) Separate School

(C3) Residential Facility

Row Set (D) CHILDREN ATTENDING NEITHER A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM NOR A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDED IN ROW SETS A, B, OR C)

(D1) receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the home (D2) And receiving special education and related service provider location

State Performance Plan, Indicator 6

A. The percent of children with IEP’s aged 3‐5 attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program.

B. The percent of children with IEP’s aged 3‐5 attending a separate special education class, a separate school or a residential facility.

IDEA Leadership Conference, 2013

7/11/2014

4

Row Set (A)

CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(A1) And receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM

(A2) …and receiving the majority of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (B)

CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THAN 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(B1) And receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM

(B2) …and RECEIVING the majority of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (C)

CHILDREN ATTENDING A SPECIAL EDUCATIONPROGRAM (NOT in any regular early childhood program), …

(C1) Separate Special Education Class

(C2) Separate School

(C3) Residential Facility

Row Set (D)

CHILDREN ATTENDING NEITHER A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM NOR A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDED IN ROW SETS A, B, OR C)

(D1) receiving the MAJORITY of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the home

(D2) And receiving special education and related service provider location

Educational Environments Data Collection

INDICATOR 6 FFY 2012 TARGETS

National mean of states & territories, Indicator 6 SPP/APR Report

6A ‐ > 38.91%6B ‐ < 31.99%

7/11/2014

5

KSDE uses two sources of data for Indicator 6

1) The service setting codes reported on each child’s IEP

2) The time in service for each service code

A‐ Home‐Based

B‐ Early Childhood Locations

G‐ Special Ed Direct Services Outside Regular Ed Classrooms/Locations

K‐ Early Childhood Program Time Without Services

R‐ Integrated Special Education

W‐ Reverse Mainstream ECSE Classroom

X‐ Indirect Services

For more information see the KSDE 2014 Data Dictionaryhttp://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/MIS/MIS%20DD.pdf

7/11/2014

6

• Early Childhood Program Time without Services

• Include the amount of time the child spends in ANY regular early childhood program, excluding time when special education services are delivered.

• Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Special Education/Early Intervention: Selected Links to Online Resources Promoting Evidence‐Based Practices (2014).

• Kansas Community Assets Profile‐Revised (Revised 2013)

• Early Childhood Program Partner Questionnaire (Revised 2013)

7/11/2014

7

7A ‐ Positive social‐emotional skills (including

social relationships)

7B ‐ Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills

(including early language/communication

[and early literacy*])

7C ‐ Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

*for 3‐5 14

7/11/2014

8

Functioning

Kasprzak & Rooney (2010)15

Percentage of children who:a) Did not improve functioningb) Improved functioning, but not sufficient to move

nearer to functioning comparable to same‐age peers

c) Improved functioning to a level nearer to same‐age peers, but did not reach it

d) Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same‐age peers

e) Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same‐age peers.

16

7/11/2014

9

Required Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

c+d __ a+b+c+d

Required Summary Statement 2: The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the program.

d+e __ a+b+c+d+e

17

Outcome 7A Outcome 7B Outcome 7C

Summary Statement 1

% of children who moved closer to same age peers

86.00% 86.50% 86.74%

Summary Statement 2

% of children who exited at age level

66.00% 64.00% 77.93%

18State targets change each year, be sure to use the most current data for your data drill down

Kansas ECO Data Quick Reference

PROGRESS CATEGORY EXPLANATION ECOSF RATINGS

a. Did not improve funcOoning Children who acquired no new skills or regressed during their &me in the program. Most likely children with severe or degenera&ve disabili&es.

Rated lower at exit than entry AND scored “no” on the progress ques&on OR Rated 1 at both entry and exit AND scored “no” on the progress ques&on

b. Improved funcOoning but not sufficient to move nearer to funcOoning comparable to same-‐aged peers

Children who acquired new skills but con&nue to grow at the same rate throughout their &me in the program.

Rated 5 or lower at entry AND rated the same or lower at exit AND had a “yes” on the progress ques&on

c. Improved funcOoning to a level nearer to same-‐aged peers but did not reach it

Children who acquired new skills but accelerated their rate of growth during their &me in the program. Children made progress toward catching up with same-‐aged peers but were s&ll func&oning below age expecta&ons when exi&ng the program.

Rated higher at exit than entry AND Rated 5 or below at exit

d. Improved funcOoning to reach a level comparable to same-‐aged peers

Children who were func&oning below age expecta&ons when they entered the program but were func&oning at age expecta&ons when exi&ng the program.

Rated 5 or lower at entry AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit

e. Maintained funcOoning at a level comparable to same-‐aged peers

Children who were func&oning at age expecta&ons when they entered the program and were func&oning at age expecta&ons when exi&ng the program.

Rated 6 or 7 at entry AND Rated 6 or 7 at exit

www.the-‐eco-‐center.org

Child Outcomes Indicators B7/C3 Progress Categories and Summary Statements for Target SeIng

!"##$%&'!($()#)*(+' ,*'-(.)%'/-%0+'1'1'1''!" #$%&'()*%+',-./*0%1'(%*0&*/*.%&'*%2/(3/45%6*-(1%43*%*72*+&4&,(0)%,0%*4+'%#8&+(5*9%&'*%2*/+*0&%1'(%)86)&40&,4--:%,0+/*4)*.%&'*,/%/4&*%($%3/(1&'%6:%&'*%&,5*%&'*:%&8/0*.%;<=%:*4/)%($%43*%(/%*7,&*.%&'*%2/(3/45%

%%%%%%%%%%%>+%?%.@%<%>4%?%6%?%+%?%.@%%

A(1%540:%+',-./*0%+'403*.%3/(1&'%&/4B*+&(/,*)%.8/,03%&'*,/%&,5*%,0%&'*%2/(3/45C%%D*/+*0&%($%&'*%+',-./*0%1'(%*0&*/*.%&'*%2/(3/45%6*-(1%43*%*72*+&4&,(0)9%54.*%3/*4&*/%&'40%*72*+&*.%34,0)9%54.*%)86)&40&,4-%,0+/*4)*)%,0%&'*,/%/4&*%($%3/(1&'9%,"*"%+'403*.%&'*,/%3/(1&'%&/4B*+&(/,*)%

E" F'*%2*/+*0&%($%+',-./*0%1'(%1*/*%$80+&,(0,03%1,&',0%43*%*72*+&4&,(0)%,0%*4+'%#8&+(5*%6:%&'*%&,5*%&'*:%&8/0*.%;<=%:*4/)%($%43*%(/%*7,&*.%&'*%2/(3/45%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%>.%?%*@<>4%?%6%?%+%?%.%?%*@%%%%

A(1%540:%+',-./*0%1*/*%$80+&,(0,03%-,G*%)45*%43*%2**/)%1'*0%&'*:%-*$&%&'*%2/(3/45C%%D*/+*0&%($%&'*%+',-./*0%1'(%1*/*%$80+&,(0,03%4&%43*%*72*+&4&,(0)%,0%&',)%(8&+(5*%4/*4%1'*0%&'*:%*7,&*.%&'*%2/(3/459%,0+-8.,03%&'()*%1'(H%

• )&4/&*.%(8&%6*',0.%40.%+483'&%829%!"%

• *0&*/*.%40.%*7,&*.%4&%43*%-*I*-%!

Kansas ECO Data Quick Reference

Developmental science has provided informa&on about the skills children master at different ages. Knowing what is expected for each age allows us to iden&fy children who are developing too slowly. Children who are substan&ally behind their peers are described as having a developmental delay. The solid line on this graph (line e) illustrates typical development. All the other lines represent some kind of delay in the early years. If Angela is 12 months old with the skills of a 6 month old, without interven&on it is likely that she will con&nue to grow at the same rate, and have the skills of a 9 month old at 1`8 months of age. We provide interven&on services because Angela is acquiring skills at about half the rate she should be and will con&nue to fall farther behind. This paJern of growth is illustrated in the b line in the graph. The purpose of intervening is to improve the child’s rate of skill acquisi&on. S&ll, some children will con&nue acquiring new skills without improving their rate of growth or moving closer to the func&oning of same age peers. A few children in our programs, such as those with profound disabili&es or degenera&ve condi&ons, will not acquire any new skills and may even show regression. These children are illustrated in line a. The c and d lines illustrate children whose growth was greater than expected because their growth rate with interven&on was greater than their growth rate before interven&on. The children with growth paJern d catch up to developmental expecta&ons. States report to OSEP the percentage of children in each of the five growth trajectories illustrated in the graph.

Reprinted with permission from the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (May 2011) Outcomes for children served through IDEA’s early childhood programs. www.the-‐eco-‐center.org

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

Kansas Inservice Training System (2012) www.kskits.org

7/11/2014

10

• For Administrators

http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/AdminNdsKno/AdminQtyRatingChecklist1_31_12.doc

• For Direct Service Providers

http://kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/whatDirectService/DrctSrvcPvdrQtyRtgLst_6_27_12.doc

KS ECO Process Quick Reference (See Handout)• http://www.kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/docum

ents/KS_ECO_ProcessQuickRef_2_20_12Opt.pdf

KS ECO Data Quick Reference• http://www.kskits.org/ta/ECOOutcomes/docum

ents/KS_ECO_DataQuickRef_2_20_12.pdf

7/11/2014

11

• Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

• Compliance Indicator with a target of 100%

7/11/2014

12

7/11/2014

13

• The Part C to Part B Electronic Referral (CBER) User Guide

http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/KIAS/indicators/Ind12‐CtoBElectRefUserGuide.pdf.

• Training Video

http://ksde.org/Agency/DivisionofLearningServices/EarlyChildhoodSpecialEducationandTitleServices/SpecialEducation/KIAS/IndicatorsandDocuments.aspx

KSDE 619 Coordinator:

Vera Lynne Stroup‐Rentier

vstroup‐[email protected]

KSDE TASN:

http://www.ksdetasn.org

Early Childhood TA Specialists:

Chelie Nelson [email protected]

Phoebe Rinkel [email protected]

July 24, 2014Pre-Leadership Conference MIS Presentation

General Supervision Timely Accurate Data (GSTAD) ProjectTim L. Berens, Grant [email protected]@keystonelearning.org

Indicator 11 measures the percent Initial Evaluations completed within 60 school days Target: 100%

The 60 School Day Initial Evaluation Timeframe ◦ For the purposes of measuring compliance with the

Federal 60 day evaluation timeline, the timeline for Eligible and Not Eligible students begins with the date the Consent for Evaluation Received and ends with date of the Eligibility Determination Meeting

7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference

2

07/11/2014

1

Indicator 11 measures the percent Initial Evaluations completed within 60 school days Target: 100%◦ Data Collection Window Opened July 1, 2014◦ Some districts have reported their results◦ Data Collection Window Closes September 15, 2014


3

Indicator 11 data collected through Indicator 11 District Data system

Data clerks and directors can access Indicator 11 system and can obtain User’s Guide by going to www.misdata.org


4

07/11/2014

2

DistrictLevelIndicator11PostDataReviewCom

plianceResultsTabulationBusinessRules

DistrictLevel

Indicator12Com

plianceStatus

1) IfColumnD=0,100%Com

pliance.**

2) IfColumnD=1,Noncompliancedem

onstrated.

3) IfColumnD>1,Noncompliancedem

onstrated.

EvaluationResult

DataEntryResultandReasons*

ColumnA:

Population

ofall

referrals

ColumnB:

Subtracted

from

the

Population

ofall

referrals

ColumnC:

Initial

Evaluations

within

Timeline

ColumnD.

Evaluations

NOT

completed

withinthe

Timelineas

aresultof

StaffError

(Non‐

Compliance)

EvaluationConductedWithin60SchoolDayTimeframe

Processends.

X

X

EvaluationNOTConductedWithin60SchoolDay

Timeframe

1.Theparentofachildrepeatedlyfailsorrefusestoproducethechild

fortheevaluation

XX

2.Achildenrollsinaschoolofanotherdistrictafterthetimeframefor

initialevaluationshasbegunandpriortoadeterminationbythe

child'spreviouspublicagencyastowhetherthechildisachild

withadisability.

XX

3.Thedistricthasobtainedwrittenparentalconsenttoanextensionof

time.

X

X

4.Stafferrorcauseddelays.

X

X

*The“Other”reasonsareintheform

ulaasanothervariable/reason.

**WhenusedfortheLevelofDetermination:TheUSDisSubstantiallyCom

pliantonIndicator11whenthenumberofstusinColD<2.

TheUSDisnotSubstantiallyCom

pliantonIndicator12whenthenumberofstusinColD>2.

07/11/2014

3

7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference 5

Potentially Noncompliant Data Verification period

Verification email [email protected]

Please adjust email program to not block emails [email protected]


6

07/11/2014

4

Compliant Data Verification of 20 randomly selected initial evaluations.

Self Reported data email from [email protected]



7

More information can be found in theKansas Integrated Accountability System(PDF) document at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=510


8

07/11/2014

5

Indicator 12 measures the percent of children Transitioning from Part C to Part B whose IEP or Eligibility meeting was held before the child's third birthday Target: 100%◦ FFY 2012 (FY2013) Indicator 12 Data Collection via

Kan_Service◦ A reason must be provided when the IEP or Eligibility

meeting was not held before the child's third birthday Process◦ KDHE sends FFY 2012 (FY2013) C to B Referrals to KSDE In

Aug◦ KSDE sends LEAs FFY 2012 (FY2013) C to B Referrals In Aug◦ LEA examines each Part C to B Referral and enters data◦ LEA returns the completed FFY 2013 (FY2014) C to B

Referrals to KSDE by Sept 15th


9

Indicator 12 no longer collected via Kan_Service.

Indicator 12 data collection system is being added to the same system as Indicator 11

When collection window opens, data clerks and directors access system and obtained User’s Guide by going to www.misdata.org


10

07/11/2014

6

Dis

tric

t Lev

el In

dica

tor

12 F

Y 20

11 D

ata

Post

Rev

iew

Com

plia

nce

Resu

lts T

abul

atio

n Bu

sine

ss R

ules

Dis

tric

t Lev

el

Indi

cato

r 12

Com

plia

nce

Stat

us

1)

If C

olum

n D

= 0

, 100

% C

ompl

ianc

e.**

2)

If C

olum

n D

= 1

, Non

com

plia

nce

dem

onst

rate

d.

3)

If C

olum

n D

> 1

, Non

com

plia

nce

dem

onst

rate

d.

Refe

rral

Res

ult

Cond

itio

n D

ata

Entr

y Re

sult

and

Rea

sons

*

Colu

mn

A:

Popu

lati

on

of a

ll re

ferr

als

Colu

mn

B:

Refe

rral

s Su

btra

cted

fr

om th

e Po

pula

tion

Colu

mn

C:

Refe

rral

s to

Par

t B

on o

r be

fore

3rd

Bi

rthd

ay

Colu

mn

D.

Refe

rral

s to

Pa

rt B

not

co

mpl

eted

on

or

befo

re

3rd B

irth

day

as a

res

ult

of S

taff

Erro

r

(Non

-Co

mpl

ianc

e)

Elig

ible

, IEP

Wri

tten

If

IEP

on o

r bef

ore

3rd

Birt

hday

Pr

oces

s end

s. X

X

If IE

P af

ter 3

rd B

irth

day,

sele

ct IE

P Re

ason

Del

ayed

: 1

Pare

nt re

fusa

l to

prov

ide

cons

ent c

ause

d de

lays

in e

valu

atio

n or

in

itial

serv

ices

. X

X

2 Pa

rent

repe

ated

ly fa

iled

or re

fuse

d to

pro

duce

the

child

for t

he

eval

uatio

n.

X X

3 St

aff e

rror

caus

ed d

elay

s in

IEP

deve

lopm

ent.

X

X

Elig

ible

, IEP

Not

W

ritt

en

If El

igib

ility

was

Det

erm

ined

but

an

IEP

was

NOT

W

ritt

en, s

elec

t a re

ason

the

IEP

was

Not

Wri

tten

: 1.

Chi

ld m

oved

afte

r elig

ibili

ty d

eter

min

atio

n an

d be

fore

3rd

bi

rthd

ay.

X X

2. P

aren

t ref

used

or r

evok

ed co

nsen

t for

serv

ices

X

X

3. S

taff

erro

r cau

sed

dela

ys.

X

X

Not

Elig

ible

If

Elig

ibili

ty D

eter

min

atio

n on

or b

efor

e 3r

d Bi

rthd

ay,

Proc

ess e

nds

X

X

If El

igib

ility

Det

erm

inat

ion

afte

r 3rd

Bir

thda

y,

sele

ct R

easo

n De

laye

d:

1. P

aren

t ref

usal

to p

rovi

de co

nsen

t cau

sed

dela

ys in

eva

luat

ion.

X

X

2. P

aren

t rep

eate

dly

faile

d or

refu

sed

to p

rodu

ce th

e ch

ild fo

r the

ev

alua

tion.

X

X

3. S

taff

erro

r cau

sed

dela

ys.

X

X

Elig

ibili

ty N

OT

Det

erm

ined

Re

ason

Elig

ibili

ty N

OT D

eter

min

ed

1. C

hild

mov

ed; o

r the

Par

ent r

efus

ed o

r rev

oked

cons

ent f

or th

e ev

alua

tion.

X

X

*The

“Oth

er” r

easo

ns a

re in

the

form

ula

as a

noth

er v

aria

ble/

reas

on.

**W

hen

used

for

the

Leve

l of D

eter

min

atio

n: T

he U

SD is

Sub

stan

tial

ly C

ompl

iant

on

Indi

cato

r 12

whe

n th

e nu

mbe

r of

stu

s in

Col

D <

2.

The

USD

is n

ot S

ubst

anti

ally

Com

plia

nt o

n In

dica

tor

12 w

hen

the

num

ber

of s

tus

in C

ol D

> 2

.

07/11/2014

7



07/11/2014

8

Potentially Noncompliant Data Verification period

Verification email from [email protected]

Please adjust email program to not block emails from [email protected]


13

Compliant Data Verification of 20 randomly selected initial evaluations.

Self Reported data email [email protected]



14

07/11/2014

9

More information can be found in theKansas Integrated Accountability System(PDF) document at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=510


15

District Level APR Data available on the Kansas APR Reports website◦ Go to www.ksdetasn.org◦ Click on the Current Kansas APR Reports (Login

Required) link on the left side of screen.◦ Login (If you need help, contact Tim Berens at

[email protected])◦ A guide to the reports and the indicators is

available by clicking on the View Guide link at the top of the page


16

07/11/2014

10

Expanded Report:◦ Performance on all indicators◦ Level of Determination◦ Rewards and Enforcements


17

EC Report:◦ Numerator and Denominator◦ Whether the Target was met


18

07/11/2014

11

Timely and Accurate Data Report:


19

Cluster Reports contain data for all districts on one report

Clusters:◦ Compliance Cluster: all the compliance indicators◦ Cluster 1: Inds 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14◦ Cluster 2: Inds 3 and 5◦ Indicator 20: Ind 20 questions and score sheet score◦ Substantial Compliance and LOD: whether an Indicator is

substantially compliant and the Level of Determination◦ Level of Determination: List of districts and the Level of

Determination◦ Early Childhood Cluster: Inds 6 and 7


20

07/11/2014

12

Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates€¦ · Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates...

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates€¦ · Leadership Conference FY2015 MIS Updates...