Archived Resources

Are you curious about what it might take to integrate your agency’s IDEA Part B data with other SEA data systems like a longitudinal data system? During this session, CIID staff provided a quick overview of the major steps required to integrate state-level data systems using the CIID Data Integration Toolkit.

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).

CIFR staff shared general findings from interviews with states on their practices and challenges in reporting data for MFS. Participants learned about the newly developed CIFR MFS toolkit designed to help states document and report MFS data. The session also described how CIFR has directly supported states experiencing MFS issues through targeted and intensive TA.

This interactive role-alike presentation for SPP/APR Coordinators engaged states in discussion and dialogue around their experiences with select APR Indicators that address student outcomes. The session included one state's experiences with capturing and using high-quality data and how the data are used to inform the APR and drive decisions for selecting and implementing strategies to improve student outcomes. Participants were encouraged to share their state's examples to improve the APR and student outcomes.

This role-alike presentation was a facilitated discussion by Part B Data Managers to explore strategies and solutions for meeting common challenges, such as working with LEAs to improve data quality, cross walking EDFacts data to SPP/APR indicators, and verifying that requirements for making data available to the public are fully met.

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.

With the U.S. Department of Education’s recent publication of an NPRM on Significant Disproportionality, questions abounded regarding what such a rule would mean for states and districts. This session began with a brief history of the statutes and regulations related to significant disproportionality. The majority of the session focused on the similarities and differences between the current regulation and the proposed rule and what effects these may have on states.