Taking the Fast Lane to High-Quality Data Sarah Bardack and Stephanie Lampron.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Title I, Part D Data: SY 2012−13 Data Preview, Data Quality, and Upcoming CSPR Clarifications Dory Seidel and Jenna Tweedie, NDTAC.
Advertisements

1 Title I, Part D Data Reporting and Evaluation: What You Need To Know Dory Seidel and Jenna Tweedie, NDTAC Karen Neilson, California Department of Education.
1 Workshop Part I: Federal Monitoring Basics Victoria Rankin, Greta Colombi, and Alexandra Woods NDTAC.
1 ND Community Call Salmon Community 21 October 2014.
Strategies for Developing Efficient and Effective Annual Count Processes Stephanie Lampron, DeAngela Milligan, and Marcia Calloway.
Workshop Part II: Subgrantee Monitoring Basics Victoria Rankin, Greta Colombi, and Alexandra Woods NDTAC.
Performance Appraisal System Update
After Core Strategies SDPI DP Grantee Meeting March 10, 2006 Denver, CO.
Reporting & Evaluation Workshop Lauren Amos, Liann Seiter, and Dory Seidel.
Whose Job Is It? Part Two © Iowa Association of School Boards At the Board Table Discussion Tool.
1 Introduction to State Logic Models and Related Planning Stephanie Lampron, NDTAC.
Building a Data Culture Data Guru Roles, Responsibilities & Expectations.
1 Monitoring Review: What Every New Coordinator Should Know Victoria Rankin and Greta Colombi, NDTAC.
ND Community Call Data Dashboards: Part 1 September 20, 2012.
ND Community Call Salmon Community October 23, 2013.
Director of Training
Welcome First Grade!. Dubuque Community School District Grade 1 In-Service Day 12:30 – 3:30 February 18, :30 – 1:00 pm Lexile and Text Level Video.
Title I, Part D State Plans Katie Deal, NDTAC State Liaison.
Meeting the Educational Needs of Diverse Learners DeAngela Milligan and Sarah Bardack.
Communication System Coherent Instructional Program Academic Behavior Support System Strategic FocusBuilding Capacity.
Innovative Approaches to Offsite Monitoring and TA Provision Greta Colombi, NDTAC.
1 ND Topical Call Series: NDTAC Resources to Meet Technical Assistance Needs (Call 3) 22 September 2015 – Katie Deal.
1 ND Communities Meeting. 2 Agenda Activity: Planning training and technical assistance Compelling technical assistance requests NDTAC has received Activity:
1 Topical Call Series: Improving Data Quality and Use CSPR Data Collection Tuesday, September 15, 2015.
J.B. Speed School of Engineering University of Louisville KEEPS Energy Management Toolkit Step 5: Implement the Action Plan Toolkit 5: Implement the Action.
Data Quality & the Consolidated District Performance Report (CDPR) Jesse Parsons & Russ Sweet, Education Specialists Oregon Department of Education August.
ND Topical Call Subgrantee Monitoring Tools: Meeting the Civil Rights Obligations to Students (Call 1) January 14, 2015.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center1 Using Data for Program Improvement Christina Kasprzak, NECTAC/ECO Ann Bailey, NCRRC July 2010.
Monitoring Advanced Tiers Tool (MATT) University of Oregon October, 2012.
Making Sound Use of Funds Decisions for Title I, Part D Nicholas Read and Simon Gonsoulin, NDTAC Jeff Breshears, California Department of Education.
The Power of Monitoring: Building Strengths While Ensuring Compliance Greta Colombi and Simon Gonsoulin, NDTAC.
Introduction: Meeting with Your Employee Performance objective meetings:  Form partnerships with the employees on your team  Communicate and share goals.
Making the Most of Your Data: Strategies for Evaluating Your Program Greta Colombi, NDTAC; and John McLaughlin, ED.
Using Data for Program Quality Improvement Stephanie Lampron, Deputy Director.
Implementing School Plans in ePlan
LANSING, MI APRIL 11, 2011 Title IIA(3) Technical Assistance #2.
Annual Counts: Understanding the Process and Its Implications.
BOCES Data Collection & Reporting October 10, 2013 Lisa Pullaro Mid-Hudson Regional Information Center.
Supporting Educators in Technology Enhanced Teaching Sandra Kučina Softić University of Zagreb University Computing Centre, Croatia Online Educa, Berlin.
Overview of the Counting Process DeAngela Milligan.
Visual 6.1 Unified Command Unit 6: Unified Command.
Annual Count for Local Agency Programs (Subpart 2) Greta Colombi.
Edit the text with your own short phrases. To change the sample image, select the picture and delete it. Now click the Pictures icon in the placeholder.
1 ND Topical Call Series: NDTAC Resources to Meet Technical Assistance Needs (Call 2) 26 August 2015 – Katie Deal.
Gathering Evidence to Achieve Results.  ALL CSD students and educators are part of ONE proactive educational system.  Evidence-based instruction and.
Consolidated State Performance Report & Survey to Generate Title I Neglected and Delinquent Funds for Subpart 2 LEAs and TACF Neglected,
Consolidated State Performance Report & Survey to Generate Title I Neglected and Delinquent Funds for Subpart 1 State Agencies Neglected,
1 New Coordinator Orientation Lauren Amos, Katie Deal, and Liann Seiter.
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) Facilitating District-wide Improvement in Instructional Practices and Student Performance.
Proposed Changes to the Title I, Part D, Federal Data Collection As of June 28, 2012.
Place Slide Title Text Here ©2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 8-1 ©2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. JOHN R. SCHERMERHORN,
SACS/CASI District Accreditation  January 2007  April 2007  May 2007  January – April 2008  Board Approval for Pursuit of District Accreditation.
1 ND Community Call Teal Community 27 October 2015.
1 Introductions Choose a photo from the table that appeals to you or represents you in some way. Write the answers to the following questions on a 3x5.
Using Pre- and Posttesting To Improve Programming and Student Achievement Anju Sidana.
Change Management CAMP JUNE 11, Change Management – why?  Why is it necessary?  Why is it important?  Proactive  Cost effective  Transparent.
Promoting Data Collection and Evaluation in Title I, Part D, Programs Stephanie Lampron, NDTAC; John McLaughlin, Program Officer; and Bobbi Stettner-Eaton,
1 ND Community Call Gold Community 22 October 2015.
National Center for Homeless Education State Coordinators Meeting 2016.
Revised OSDV Tools and Processes LFA PSM expert workshop 28-30January 2014.
Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State DOTs NCHRP Project Information.
1 Effectively Addressing Administrative Challenges of Implementing Title I, Part D Katie Deal, Rob Mayo, Liann Seiter, and Jake Sokolsky.
1 Welcome! Choose a photo from the table that appeals to you or represents you in some way. Write the answers to the following questions on a 3×5 notecard.
Organisation Control KPI’s & an industry Review
Phase I Strategies to Improve Social-Emotional Outcomes
School Improvement Plans and School Data Teams
Planning Ahead for Your Club
Data Quality 101: What is Data Quality
Using Data to Monitor Title I, Part D
Welcome Reporting: Individual Student Report (ISR), Student Roster Report, and District Summary of Schools Report Welcome to the Reporting: Individual.
Presentation transcript:

Taking the Fast Lane to High-Quality Data Sarah Bardack and Stephanie Lampron

Provide an overview of the importance of data quality. Discuss the role of coordinators in relation to data quality. Present ways of approaching processes efficiently so that you are on the fast lane to data quality! 2 Session Goals

You need to TRUST your data as it informs: – Data-driven decisionmaking – Technical assistance (TA) needs – Federal budget justifications Furthermore, students deserve to have their accomplishments accurately demonstrated. 3 Why Is Data Quality Important?

4 What Is “high data quality”? If data quality is high, the data can be used in the manner intended because they are:  Accurate  Consistent  Unbiased  Understandable  Transparent

5 Individual Programs: Where Data Quality Begins Individual Programs SA or LEA SEA USED If data quality is not a priority at the local level, the problems become harder to identify as the data are rolled up— problems can become hidden. If data issues are recognized late in the process, it is more difficult (and less cost-effective) to identify where the issues are and rectify them in time.

Ultimately, coordinators cannot “make” the data be of high quality, but you can implement systems that make it a good possibility:  Understand the collection process.  Provide TA in advance.  Develop relationships.  Develop multilevel verification processes.  Track problems over time.  Use the data. 6 Role of the Part D Coordinator

7 Don’t give up—it does not have to happen all at once, and there are several ways to make the process more efficient…

1.The fastest way to motivate for data quality  Use the data programs provide. 2.The best way to increase data quality  Promote usage at the local level. 8 Method # 1: Use the Data!!!

9 Should you use data that has lower quality data? YES!! You can use these data to… Become familiar with the data and readily ID problems Know when the data are ready to be used or how they can be used Incentivize and motivate others

10 Method #2: Incentivize and Motivate 1.Know who is involved in the process and their roles. 2.Identify what is important to you and your data coordinators. 3.Select motivational strategies that align with your priorities (and ideally encourage teamwork). RewardProvide Control BelongCompareLearnPunish Provide bonus/ incentives for good data quality (individual or team level) Set goals, but allow freedom of how to get there Communicate vision and goals at all levels Publish rankings, and make data visible (to individuals or to everyone) Provide training and tools on data quality and data usage Withhold funding

Consider targeting only: Top problem areas among all subgrantees Most crucial data for the State Struggling programs 11 Method #3: Prioritize

12 Method #4: Know the Data Quality Pitfalls Recognize and respond proactively to the things that can hinder progress: Changes to indicators Staff turnover Funding availability

13 Method #5: Renew, Reuse, Recycle Develop materials upfront Look to existing resources and make them your own Where to look: NDTAC ED Your ND community The Web

1.Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) Guide Text resources Sample CSPR tables, indepth instructions, and data quality checklists Visual tools for walking through the more difficult aspects of the CSPR 2.CSPR Frequently Asked Questions 3.EDFacts File Specifications 14 NDTAC: Tools for Proactive TA

EDFacts summary reports (reviewing) Reviewing handout (reviewing and prioritizing) Data quality reports (motivating) 15 Tools for Reviewing Data and Motivating Providers

Activity: Understanding Common Data Problems and Thinking About Future Technical Assistance

The goal of this activity is to: Review common data quality issues Walk through scenarios and calculations so that you have a better understanding of the issues and can communicate them to subgrantees Help you think about ways to provide TA and display data quality information 17 Data Quality Activity

18 Activity Instructions This activity has four handouts—each group will be responsible for one. Organize yourselves in groups of two or three, and work through the problems or scenarios on your handout. Elect someone to be a spokesperson for your group. After 10–15 minutes, we will ask you to share and walk through the worksheets, answers, and suggestions as a group.

19 Calculating Average Length of Stay FacilityAverage Length of Stay (in days) Alligator Correctional School100 Cajun Central School350 Magnolia Academy50 Total Sum at SA Level 500 Average (total / 3) 167 days Regular Average Weighted Average Facility Number of Students (Duplicated Count) Average Length of Stay (in days) Weighted Average Length of Stay (students X stay) Alligator Correctional School ,500 Cajun Central School103503,500 Magnolia Academy Total Sum for at SA Level536,900 Total Weighted Average at SA Level (Student x Stay/Total Students 6,900/53 = 130 days

20 Calculating the Below-Grade-Level Indicator Type of Data Number of Students With Data Number of Long-Term Students With Data Students who took only a pretest in reading (no posttest) 4538 Students who took BOTH a pretest and a posttest in reading 3325 Students who took only a posttest as they were leaving (no prettest data available) 2512 Students without either a pretest or a posttest (no data) 105 Total11380 If you wanted to determine how many LONG-TERM students tested BELOW grade level when they entered the facility, how many students would have data available for you to use? Number of students: = 63 students with data available

21 Age-Eligibility Indicators Outcome-Specific Age Ranges Calculation (# achieving outcome/ # of age-eligible students) Final Percent Outcome measures calculated by ED for your State High school course credits13–21 years old 61 students earning outcome/ 82 age-eligible students74% Obtained employment14–21 years old 82 students with outcome/ 77 age-eligible students 106%