Site Search

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.

IDEA allows, and sometimes requires, LEAs to use funds provided under Part B of IDEA for CEIS for students who are not receiving special education services. There are multiple data collection and reporting requirements associated with the use of these funds for CEIS. IDC staff review how a diverse subset of states and their LEAs are working to meet those requirements. Both aggregate and student-level reporting approaches are reviewed.

This presentation focused on what is meant by the term “data quality” and provided information regarding the importance of high-quality data in the collection, reporting, and use of data in local and state decision making. Presenters shared actual examples from state experiences.

The required measurements for APR Indicators B3, B4, B5, B6, B9, and B10 (the assessment, discipline, LRE, and disproportionality indicators) are based on Section 618 data. This session focused on selected section 618 data submissions and how the data can be explored to provide more in-depth information for use in discussion with state’s APR stakeholders. Presenters demonstrated some practical methods for taking a deeper look at data in the IDEA EDFacts file submissions using readily available data analysis tools (Microsoft Excel).

Presenters and participants discussed strategies that SEAs can use to help LEAs in collecting section 618 and other state-required data that is of high-quality. They explored IDC’s Knowledge Lab that lists various resources around different data collections. The Knowledge Lab contains many resources designed to help SEAs and LEAs gather, collect, validate, and report high-quality data. The discussion allowed for state input on how the state uses or can use these resources.

Findings from IDC’s white paper and interviews of select states revealed that LEAs are responsible for determining LRE and implementation and monitoring of IEPs in online environments. Presentation of findings were followed by a panel discussion of states and LEAs to discuss key problems of practice and needs for resources that IDC can develop to support greater understanding of implications of online learning for SWDs and the relationship to high-quality data.

It can be challenging to bridge the huge shift from a focus on solely compliance-driven data to an emphasis on results-driven monitoring. Compliance data can be hard and fast; results-driven data can be harder to pin down. This topical burst provided an overview of compliance data, the interrelationship between compliance and results data, and existing processes that can help bridge the gap between accountability and program improvement.