DMS in MS: Mississippi Talks Differentiated Monitoring and Support 2.0, Part Two

00:00:04.25 For the IDEA data center, I'm Amy Bitterman, and this is A Date with Data. Every month I sit down with data quality influencers from around the country to share their stories about special education data and the work they do to improve outcomes for children with disabilities.

00:00:21.45 Welcome to part two of our conversation with Sharon Coon and Jennifer Boykin with the Mississippi Department of Education about their DMS experience. If you missed part one, be sure to check it out. Are there other lessons or tips that you would offer states who are now in the preparation phases for their DMS visits?

00:00:42.67 Don't be afraid to bring in other program offices within your agency to help solidify—or even inform—any revisions you're making. Sharon and I are both heavily involved in our data governance team here at the agency, and our data processes and the work of our data governance committee can’t really be separated because they're so intertwined. In many cases, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel—there’s already a process for that within another office’s collection process.

00:01:18.40 Or it may not be the exact data point, but the process is very similar. We borrow and learn from within our agency so we don’t work in our own silo. We have brilliant people here—statisticians, computer scientists, data analysts—who live and breathe data. Sharon and I are programmatic people who happen to know a lot about data. We often explain the programmatic piece so it informs the data work, but they can help us think about the numbers in ways we might not on our own. Bringing them in has been really helpful.

00:02:10.50 Another really helpful strategy was getting our leadership team together on a regular basis. Jennifer made sure we had one day a month—as many months in a row as we could—set aside to meet as a leadership team offsite. In special education, nothing ever goes exactly according to plan, so you have to be ready to make changes.

00:02:30.56 But having that dedicated time to go through everything together and hear each other’s answers was extremely helpful. We’d walk through the protocol, discuss the answers, and make sure the whole team was aligned—not just one bureau or one office. It put everyone on the same page. Even when you work hard to avoid silos, day-to-day work can pull you back into them.

00:03:25.93 Meeting regularly also meant that when questions came up during the visit, nobody was surprised by the answer. We all understood what was happening and what the outcome would be. We also made strong use of our monthly call with our state lead, and we had a great support team from technical assistance providers—NCSI, IDC, and CIFER—on those calls. That was invaluable preparation.

00:04:20.75 One thing OSEP commented on specifically during closeout was how impressed they were with how our team communicated with each other. For the entire interview components, the entire leadership team was together.

00:04:33.12 If they asked a monitoring question, Sharon spoke to the data component, Nolene spoke to the programmatic piece, Vanessa and Janika addressed fiscal, and Ginger and Amy connected it to technical assistance and data collection. It presented a well-rounded picture of how all the pieces work together to meet general supervision responsibilities.

00:05:07.11 OSEP noted it was impressive that we knew where one person’s expertise ended and another’s began. That communication helps us provide the best possible support to our LEAs.

00:06:17.86 It sounds like you have a strong system of collaboration and cross-agency partnering in place that served you well throughout the process.

00:06:43.18 Now that it’s been a few months since your visit, what changes or improvements related to data have you started to work on?

00:06:59.57 We used our preparation process as an internal self-assessment. We identified many areas to strengthen—fiscal, programmatic, and data-related. Some items weren’t necessarily wrong but could be clearer or more efficient. And some issues required immediate attention. We began correcting things as we found them through the protocol review.

00:07:32.20 There was really only one data surprise around transition data, and Sharon and her team jumped in immediately. Sharon, can you talk about that?

00:08:07.54 For Indicator 13, we had been using data from our student information system, which only identified whether a student had a transition plan. If the box wasn’t checked, we would request a plan for review. With OSEP’s help, we realized that simply having a plan doesn’t necessarily mean it meets the indicator requirements.

00:08:45.55 We moved from collecting transition data from the student information system to using data collected during cyclical monitoring. During cyclical monitoring, we already request IEPs for transition-age students (transition age is 14 in Mississippi). We’re increasing the number of transition plans we request so we can review a more representative sample and ensure plans meet all components.

00:09:48.48 We’ve already begun shifting that data collection process. We also leveraged the visit to update our district determination reports, which we had tried to update before but couldn’t due to transitions within the department. Having OSEP on-site helped us push that priority forward.

00:10:45.64 We also further developed our general supervision plan and strengthened it using OSEP’s feedback. The compliance pieces are a major part of general supervision, and we were able to make meaningful improvements.

00:11:24.54 It really speaks to the “support” part of differentiated monitoring and support—not just monitoring, but partnership to strengthen systems and improve outcomes.

00:11:53.05 It really was. Dr. Boykin had been at the department maybe a week when we found out we were being bumped up to cohort two, and she was our biggest cheerleader. She kept the framing positive—this is an opportunity to improve and get things done we’ve wanted to do. That kind of leadership made a big difference.

00:13:06.29 You all have a great team. Thank you for sharing your DMS journey. I know states preparing for cohorts three and beyond will benefit from hearing your experience and tips. Thank you both for being on.

00:13:47.39 A Date with Data is produced by the IDEA data center, which is funded by the US Department of Education. Have a story about special education data that you'd like to share? We'd love to hear from you. Reach out to us at ideadata@westat.com. To learn more about our center and our work, visit ideadata.org.