The Changing Landscape of Special Education Data 2015 Leadership Conference “All In: Achieving Results Together” The Changing Landscape of Special Education Data Mary Corey, Missouri Department of Education Diane Murphy, Connecticut Department of Education Tammy Pearcy, Texas Education Agency Shiyloh Duncan-Becerril, California Department of Education

EdFacts: Multiple Reporting of Disability Subgroups Exits School Age File Personnel Suspension/Expulsion LRE Graduation Homeless Assessment EL Federal EdFacts Reporting

The APR: Not Just Special Education !! Drop out Disproportionality Compliance Indicators Suspension/Expulsion LRE Graduation Assessment Annual Performance Report

Consolidated State Performance Report Consolidated State Performance Report Different from the APR—but still includes SWDs Graduation Assessment Sub Groups Consolidated State Performance Report

Data presentation and Visualization Public reporting of special education data requires the Part B Data Administrator to know and explain the data.

What else…

Pressure Political Legal Fiscal

Results driven Accountability

High stakes calculations

State Structures and Challenges

California 715,000 Special Education Students 1700 Districts (LEAs) 139 SELPAs

California Part B Data Manager is APR author EdFacts coordinator (for SPED only) SSIP Co-lead Special Education Database Administrator Special Education Monitoring DBA Assessment Expert for SPED PRA Coordinator Public Reporting Coordinator

Challenges Special Education is completely separate from general education data Intermediary Education Agencies Lawsuit oversight State Superintendent is elected official No carrots—only sticks!

Tricks and Tools Daily access to State Director of Special Education Strong relationships with general education data systems Trained in SAS and all team members trained in SAS Develop and Document processes Training on Data Visualization Tough Skin

Missouri 125,000 Special Education Students 560+ LEAs

Missouri Part B Data Manager is Not in the Office of Special Education APR data provider EDFacts coordinator (for SPED only) HQT & Personnel for general ed and SPED Co-manager of data collection systems for general ed Public Reporting Coordinator Data support/supplier for Office of Special Education Technical assistance to LEAs on data reporting Part C Data Manager

Challenges Special Education data is collected/stored along with general education data, but not as accessible on the reporting side Controlling/managing others’ needs to collect additional data Time/intensity involved with developing/maintaining data systems Limited ITSD resources

Tricks and Tools Strong involvement with general education data, including ITSD prioritization team Strong relationship with special education Generating most 618 EDFacts files from SLDS, including Personnel files Length of involvement with special education data Access to other Data Managers

Texas 451,623 Special Education Students 1,246 LEAs 8.5% of all Student Population 1,246 LEAs 9,219 Active Campuses 20 Regional Education Service Centers (ESCs)

Texas Part B Data Manger is Both data an program specialist SPP/APR/SSIP team lead and author Public reporting coordinator and LEA notification author (LEA determinations, disproportionate, compliance letters) Data collections manager for certain SPP data Core team member (internal) and stakeholder coordinator (external) for supervision and monitoring systems Responsive to PIRs, annual audits on 618 data, and technical assistance to ESCs and LEAs on data reporting

Challenges Legislative due to biennium schedule major ed policy changes possible and probable affecting aspects of state data Local control – no statewide IEP systems Large state with large variance in populations Districts serving 1 sped student to a district with more than 16,000 sped students Timelines for certain 618 data reporting Exiting in November, Child Count and Ed Environment until moved to April

Tricks and Tools Generate most 618 EdFacts files from SLDS Contract for customized data collection apps not included in SLDS (SPP 7, 11, 12, 13, 14) Strong relationship with SLDS team, and other programs/divisions within state agencies Understanding data relationships and how to explain “it depends”

Connecticut 75,000 Special Education Students Approx. 200 LEAs 17 Regional Sch. Districts 8 Secondary only 9 PK-12 22 Charter Sch. Districts 4 State Districts DOC DMHAS DCF CTHSS 3 “Quasi-Public” Sch. Districts

Connecticut Part B Data Manager is a “split” position in CT: Neither of us “sit” in the Office of Special Education APR analyst and coauthor w/ BSE indicator managers Analyze all data for LEA-Level APRs/Disproportionality EDFacts file preparation (special ed files only) TA provider regarding data analysis and reporting SSIP Core Team Member and Analyst Focused Monitoring Core Team Member and Analyst SLDS Core Team Member (critical for public reporting decisions concerning SWD) ESEA Flexibility/Accountability Analyst Responsible for annual audit of 1% of all IEPs statewide

Challenges Public Reporting Portal (EdSight is delayed – not currently publicly accessible) Legislative Oversight and Data Collection mandates Local Control Mindset: No statewide IEP or IEP System; multiple IEP vendors that SDE has no control over. Too many LEAs in small state results in significant data suppression due to low “n” for any break out of special ed data. No meaningful public reporting except statewide and 7 largest cities. Significant socio-economic gap between towns poses a challenge in implementing statewide initiatives – vastly different needs across the state.

Tricks and Tools CPO with a mindset that special education is a breakout no different than gender and FRL and must exist in all reporting. Data are collected in systems designed for all students. All data is linkable via unique state assigned identifiers at the student, teacher, and school/program levels. Strong relationships with special education – on all committees so data is part of every conversation. Strong relationships with LEA Special Ed Directors. Use of the word “hypothetically”

Questions What are some of the challenges that you are dealing with that were not discussed here? How is the work on the SSIP changing the work that you are doing? How are you dealing with the changing role of data in your state? What would you need to overcome the challenges you are facing as a data manager?