No GSEG?No GSEG? Low Budget Data Initiative with Low Budget Data Initiative with

High Dollar ImpactHigh Dollar Impact

Lisa Backer

619 Co-Coordinator/ECSE Specialist

MN Department of Education

lisa.backer@state.mn.us

The ContextThe Context

A bit about Minnesota….

Minnesota is the birthplace of….Minnesota is the birthplace of….

• Water-skiing

• SPAM

• Bob Dylan

• Judy Garland

• Target Stores

• Prince

We are home to…We are home to…

• The Mall of America

• The first professional wrestler to hold the office of Governor

• The headwaters of the Mississippi River

• The world’s largest ball of twine• Yes, I that says “twine”

MN Is “Birth Mandate” StateMN Is “Birth Mandate” State

• Education is the lead agency for Part C

• Interagency agreements with MN Depts. Of Health and Human services

• Free, Appropriate Public Education provided to young children from birth

• Local efforts driven by Interagency Early Intervention Committees (IEIC’s)

MN’s Continuous Improvement ProcessMN’s Continuous Improvement Process

• 2000: Completion of Self Assessment & Identification of 12 Priority Areas

• 2001: Planning year for Areas 1-5

• 2002: Implementation of Areas 1-5 Planning year for Areas 6-8

• 2003: Implementation for Areas 1-8 Planning year for Areas 9-12

Identified Priority AreasIdentified Priority Areas

• Workforce

• Diversity

• Child Find

• Mental Health

• Service Coordination

• Educational Results

• Inclusion

• Assistive Technology

• Transitions

• Accountability and Compliance

• Family Involvement

• Geographic Disparities

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process: Self Review (MnCIMP:SR)Process: Self Review (MnCIMP:SR)

• Alternative to traditional compliance monitoring• 80% of all districts participate• Uses baseline data and tracks improvement in

key areas– Graduation/dropout rates– Suspension/expulsion– Standardized test scores & Alternate Assessments– Least Restrictive Environments

MnCIMP: SR ProcessMnCIMP: SR Process

• Planning Phase – Initial program evaluation– Compliance self-review– Planning report submitted to MDE

• Implementation– Data analysis– Impact of initiated improvement strategies– Report submitted to MDE

MnCIMP: SR ProcessMnCIMP: SR Process

• Verification Visit by MDE monitor and trained “peer” monitors

• Report of visit generated by MDE and provided to district leadership and staff

• Children served through Part C and 619 were planfully included in verification visit activities.

Questions Posed by OSEPQuestions Posed by OSEP

• Is Minnesota identifying all eligible infants Birth to Age 1?

• Do the identified infants & toddlers reflect the demographics of the local area ?

• How effective are primary referral sources ?

And More Questions…..And More Questions…..

• Do primary referral sources differ by age (<1, 2, 3) ?

• Are IEICs and their member agencies effectively identifying young children and their families?

• Is there variability from one part of the state to another?

And Finally….And Finally….

• The APR

• Minnesota’s data SNAFU– Age on December 1 rather than

September 1

• OSEP Verification Visit

QBQ: The Questions Behind the QuestionQBQ: The Questions Behind the Question

• Who’s to blame?

• Why are we so disorganized/dysfunctional?

• Why won’t our administration fiscally support a better data system?

• What can I do?

MN’s Existing Data SystemMN’s Existing Data System

• MARSS System– Minnesota Automated Reporting Student

System

• Unique identifier assigned at time of enrollment– Initial evaluation– Determination of eligibility

Key Data Elements in MARSSKey Data Elements in MARSS

• District

• Race/Ethnicity

• Instructional Settings

• Gender

• Economic Indicator

• Mobility Indicator

• Home Primary Language

• Primary Disability

• Status End Codes

• Hours of Service (membership)

““Missing” Data ElementsMissing” Data Elements

• Services by individual child

• Child and Family Outcomes

• Primary and Secondary Referral Sources

Part C Enhanced Data CollectionPart C Enhanced Data Collection

• Added to existing “rogue” website

• Set-up cost absorbed by existing State Improvement Grant

• Data analysis done by staff from Department of Education

• Mandatory participation by districts

IndicatorsIndicators

Areas of QualityAreas of Quality• Child Find/Determining Eligibility

• Functional Child Goals or Outcomes

• Instructional Settings/Inclusion

• Comprehensiveness & Intensity of Service

• Routines-based, Transdisciplinary Intervention

• Measuring Child Progress

• Family Outcome Measures

ECSE Quality IndicatorsECSE Quality Indicators• Child Find/Determining Eligibility

• Instructional Settings/Inclusion

• Comprehensiveness & Intensity of Service

• Measuring Child Progress

• Family Outcome Measures

Child Find IndicatorsChild Find Indicators

• Percent of general population <1

• Percent of general population 0 through 2

• Percent of general population 0 through 4

• Proportion of identified children from a racial/ethnic group compared to the racial/ethnic makeup of the general population

Additional Child Find IndicatorsAdditional Child Find Indicators

• Use of a variety of disability criteria

• Proportion of kindergarten enrollment initially determined eligible and the primary disabilities of those children.

• Proportion of referrals made by specific primary and secondary sources

Child ProgressChild Progress• What percent of children served under age 3

demonstrates improved and sustained functional abilities? – Cognitive development; – physical development, including vision and

hearing; – communication development; – social or emotional development; and – adaptive development.

Child OutcomesChild Outcomes• Young children with disabilities entering

kindergarten demonstrate increased levels of proficiency in the areas– Physical well-being and motor development– Social and Emotional Development– Approaches to learning– Language Development– Cognition – Creativity and the Arts

Comprehensiveness & IntensityComprehensiveness & Intensity

• Local areas comprehensively identify needs and provide a full array of early intervention services.

• A range of intensity is evident within each district’s ECSE program– By age?– By Primary Disability?

Natural Environments/LRENatural Environments/LRE

• Proportion of infants/toddlers served in natural environments – At home– In programs designed for children without

disabilities

• Proportion of children age 3 through 5 served in Early Childhood Settings or at Home

Family ParticipationFamily Participation

• Supports, services and resources provided to each family increase the family’s capacity to enhance the development of their child.

November, 2004

Sometimes the Plants and Stars Align…..

Putting Data to WorkPutting Data to Work• Easy access

• Ease of use

• Meaningful comparisons– State– Region– Strata– To the individual district as trends over time

• Accuracy

2003-2004 ECSE District Profile2003-2004 ECSE District Profile

• Based on Excel 2000

• Utilized “Lookup” functions

• Displayed data on those indicators for which accurate data was available

• Annually updateable

• Will “live” on MDE website on the Continuous Improvement landing page

District Profile In ActionDistrict Profile In Action