Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityTips for Improving Reporting Quality
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
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityVocational / Work Study Programs
Tips for Improving Reporting QualityVocational / Work Study Programs
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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy 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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
Recommendation:Run provider rosters early to confirm current year case loads and summer exits
What exits are at issue?
22
7/11/2014
12
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
• 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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
• 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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
– 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
Avoiding Timely & Accuracy IssuesAvoiding Timely & Accuracy Issues
– 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
Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015
SSN
Future MIS Reporting
Licensed elsewhere
SSN
Educator ID
SSN is retired
Added to import
specifications
Kept in import
specifications
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
30
Provider Identifiers
7/11/2014
16
Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015
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
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
31
Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015Move to Educator ID starting in FY2015
Start the Educator ID discover process
Additional Option:Complete a data request to KSDE for a listing of Educator ID by provider
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
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
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
33
Problem:
60 + 40 = 100
Not 101
Exampleof problem
Determining total days of service
File import recommendationFile import recommendation
Dates: 11 -13 - 2014
To05 – 21 – 2015101 total days
Service line 2.3 days per week,
every week= 60 total days
Service line 1.5 days per week,
every week= 101 total days
Service line 3.2 days per week,
every week= 40 total days
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
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
File import recommendationFile import recommendation
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
KAN_Service UpdatesKAN_Service Updates
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
KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release
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
KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release
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
KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release KAN_Service updates, Summer 2014 release
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 / Prevalence / Data Sharing
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?
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
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
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 1 - Use the K-12 reports to calculate
47
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
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
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 2 - Data Request
50
7/11/2014
26
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 2 - Data Request
51
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
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
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 3 - Data Sharing
53
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 3 - Data Sharing
Remove any personal identifiers54
7/11/2014
28
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
Option 3 - Data Sharing
55
Child count / Prevalence / Data Sharing
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
!"#$$%&'()*+!,%-#,'()*+!.)/!()'%,-,%'()*!#0'%2!/.'.!#)!()3.)'2+!'#//$%,2+!.)/!-,%2&4##$%,2!5('4!/(2.6($('(%2!(2!.!-$%7!0)/%,'.8()*!3#,!2'.'%2!.)/!$#&.$!-,#*,.129!:)!'4(2!.*%!#3!.&�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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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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]
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
6
07/11/2014
4
Compliant Data Verification of 20 randomly selected initial evaluations.
Self Reported data email from [email protected]
Please adjust email program to not block emails [email protected]
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
7
More information can be found in theKansas Integrated Accountability System(PDF) document at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=510
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference 11
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference 12
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]
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
13
Compliant Data Verification of 20 randomly selected initial evaluations.
Self Reported data email [email protected]
Please adjust email program to not block emails [email protected]
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
16
07/11/2014
10
Expanded Report:◦ Performance on all indicators◦ Level of Determination◦ Rewards and Enforcements
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
17
EC Report:◦ Numerator and Denominator◦ Whether the Target was met
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
18
07/11/2014
11
Timely and Accurate Data Report:
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
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
7/23/2014Pre-Leadership Conference
20
07/11/2014
12