The Resource Library houses tools and products that were developed by IDC, developed with its collaborators, or submitted by IDC stakeholders. Search and filtering tools are available to help users navigate through the library.
Format: Guides and BriefsIDEA Section 618 Public Reporting Data Element Checklist – Part B
This interactive checklist assist states to meet IDEA Section 618 public reporting requirements. The checklist also has an archiving function to document the posting process for later reference.
Format: Guides and BriefsStatewide Assessment: Indicator 3 Measurement Changes From FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025
This resource offers a side-by-side comparison of the SPP/APR Part B indicator measurement tables for FFY 2019 and FFY 2020 to highlight new SPP/APR reporting requirements and measurement changes to Indicator 3. The majority of students with disabilities participate in regular statewide assessments, and a small percentage of students with the most significant disabilities participate in alternate assessments. In FFY 2020, OSEP requires states to disaggregate statewide assessment results for these two groups of students with disabilities (i.e., those who participate in the regular assessment and those who participate in the alternate assessment). OSEP also requires states to calculate a “proficiency rate gap” between students with and without disabilities who participate in the regular statewide assessment.
Format: Guides and BriefsGraduation Rate and Dropout Rate: Indicators 1 and 2 Measurement Changes From FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025
This resource focuses on recent changes in the data source and measurement of Part B Indicators 1 and 2. The resource specifically addresses the treatment of “alternate diploma” in the new calculation. In FFY 2019, the calculation of graduation rate included students receiving an alternate diploma in the numerator. For FFY 2020–2025 the calculation of graduation rate includes students receiving an alternate diploma in the denominator. The calculation for Indicator 2 remains similar from FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025; however, it explicitly adds students receiving an alternate diploma in the denominator.
Format: Applications and SpreadsheetsGraduation Rate (Indicator 1) and Dropout Rate (Indicator 2) Calculator
This tool from IDC and NTACT calculates graduation and dropout rates using the 618 Exiting data, as OSEP will require in coming years for reporting in states’ SPP/APRs. The tool can accumulate and graph multiple years of data, allowing users to observe trends in the rates over time and share the information easily with stakeholders.
Format: Applications and SpreadsheetsSEA Edit Check and Data Display Tool - Part B MOE and CEIS
IDC and CIFR developed the SEA Edit Check and Data Display Tool - Part B MOE and CEIS to help states prepare their Part B MOE and CEIS data submission. States can use the tool to identify potential edit check errors or errors in subtotals or totals prior to submitting the data to OSEP. The tool allows states to input LEA-level data into the base data tab and generates edit check messages that the tool displays in the auto-calculations tab. IDC and CIFR updated the MOE and CEIS edit check tool with the revised reporting years and to reflect updates to three edit checks.
Format: Applications and SpreadsheetsCoordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Fiscal and Student Data Tracker
The Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Fiscal and Student Data Tracker is a set of four tools SEAs can use with their districts, schools, and providers to assist them in tracking the finances, services, and student data associated with CEIS. IDC and CIFR produced the CEIS Tracker. The resource also includes an instructions document or user's guide for more information about when and how to use the CEIS Tracker.
Format: Trainingsii20 Session Presentations and Handouts
The Interactive Institutes 2020 – Building and Sustaining a Culture of High-Quality Data provided opportunities for participants to take a deep dive into data quality topics to learn about data culture change. Participants were able to discover best practices to improve data collection, reporting, analysis, and use. They also engaged with peers and TA providers about trending data quality topics. Each session presented powerful ideas and actionable plans to improve work processes and data quality.