Site Search

Results 15 - 21 of 25

    Format: Presentations

    The Hard Work of Collecting Data on Quality and Compliance

    This session provided an overview of the landscape of Part B Indicator 13 data collection across the nation. Presenters shared insights from the TA Center charged with analyzing this indicator and two states that have wrestled with examining the quality of services in the compliance monitoring process. Presenters shared data, lessons learned, and suggestions.

    Format: Presentations

    Moving From Bystander to Participant: Engaging State Leaders During Data Integration

    CIID is facilitating a workgroup of SEAs interested in improving engagement of state leaders in IDEA data integration efforts. For data integration to succeed, SEAs and state leaders must communicate ideas, goals, and objectives clearly across departments and to various stakeholder groups. This role-alike presentation for state directors and leaders provided an opportunity for state leaders to learn how to move from being a bystander to an active participant in data integration efforts. Participants learned more about critical times for engagement, ensuring communication and cooperation among state leaders who rely on data for decision making, and positive outcomes that result from integrating IDEA data.

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Presentations

    618 Data—What’s That? Getting to Know Your 618 Data

    Have you heard these terms 618, 616, EDFacts, EMAPS, file specifications, OMB-MAX, GRADS360, Data Quality Reports? Do you understand what they are referencing? Do you want to gain a higher knowledge of these terms? Participants in this presentation learned more about IDEA data reporting requirements in relation to the 618 data collections. They also learned about data quality considerations and tools states can use when going through the data collecting and reporting procedures.

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Presentations

    SSIP Phase III: Operationalizing Your Evaluation Plan

    During this interactive role-alike workshop for SSIP Coordinators, the IDC Evaluation Team helped participants refine SSIP evaluation plans, identify action steps and timelines for implementing evaluation activities, and learn about resources that may be helpful in operationalizing their evaluation plans. For the 2016 Conference on Improving Data, Improving Outcomes held August 15-17, this workshop was conducted with an updated presentation and handout.

    Format: Presentations

    Data Collection Decisions to Improve Data Quality for Quality Data Use

    This presentation provided an overview of the challenges of data collection for IDEA Part B Indicator 14 and identified some successful efforts to overcome challenges such as representativeness and response rates. Additionally, presenters shared one state's effort to improve the quality of their student post-school outcome data to increase confidence in programmatic decisions that could be made from those data.

    Format: Presentations

    How States Use IDEA's Fiscal Flexibilities: LEA Maintenance of Effort and Coordinated Early Intervening Services

    The presentation provided an overview of LEA MOE and CEIS requirements, including the four new data collection elements implemented by OSEP. Presenters also provided information about areas of IDEA fiscal flexibilities that are available to states and discussed the fact that not many LEAs take advantage of these flexibilities. The flexibilities relate to the MOE reduction, CEIS, and their possible correlation to the SSIP.

    Format: Presentations

    MOE and CEIS Data Reporting and Quality Tools and Tips

    IDC and CIFR staff presented an overview of tools available to states and LEAs around LEA MOE and CEIS requirements and data quality. They also presented information on considerations states and LEAs need to keep in mind in relation to the MOE and CEIS requirements and data quality. One state presented information about the policies, procedures, practices, and tools/ templates it has in place to ensure LEAs meet the LEA MOE and CEIS requirements and improve data quality. The state staff also discussed their work with CIFR around the LEA MOE calculator.