Archived Resources

OSEP requires SEAs to report data on the LEAs that use IDEA funds for either CEIS or CCEIS through the IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction, CEIS, and CCEIS data submission. The purpose of this resource is to provide examples of how SEAs and LEAs can accurately track the funds used for CEIS and CCEIS and track the children who receive those services.

This session introduced the IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework as a tool to guide development of a coherent approach to improving data quality and data systems. The overall purpose of the framework and accompanying products is to allow states to assess progress toward valid collection, analysis, use, and reporting of Part B IDEA data. The presenter also presented and described a companion data system graphic.

This session focused on how to best communicate high-quality data by applying different strategies to prepare data for dissemination and use. Topics covered in this session included the importance of understanding the audience, how stakeholder needs can vary when understanding and interpreting data, why data governance is a key component in planning data communication activities, and why accessibility is important. This session highlighted sections of the Data Use component of the IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework.

In this workshop, states set the stage by telling a story of how they engage stakeholders using data visualization techniques for effective communication. Session presenters introduced the IDC Part B Indicator Data Display Wizard to help states create data displays quickly and easily using SPP/APR data. In an interactive activity, participants discussed their current experiences with data use and communication and how the IDC Part B Indicator Data Display Wizard can help them create or improve a state’s current data visualization and communication process.

This session reviewed the working principles of high-quality IDEA data as they relate to the various discipline data states must submit each year for children and youth with disabilities. Discussion topics included how states make sure their data are accurate, timely, and complete. Presenters also discussed how states maintain discipline data security while making the data accessible and usable.

In this session, Tennessee shared recent improvements the state made to its process for making annual local determinations as required under IDEA. The Tennessee process demonstrates how the state uses IDEA Section 618 and other data to measure an LEA’s performance toward meeting state targets of the SPP/APR for various indicators and how use of these results is ultimately part of the determination decisionmaking process. Tennessee included the results of these annual determinations in its annual submission of the MOE Reduction and CEIS data.

This session covered the requirements to report the data, challenges for collecting the data, and resources available to help states with their MOE and CEIS data collection and submission. Presenters introduced several resources that states and LEAs can use to enhance the data collection and submission process.