1. IDEA Assessment Data Anne Rainey, IDEA Part B Data Manager, Montana
Nick Easter, Ed.D., IDEA Part B Data Manager, Nevada
Meredith Miceli, Research to Practice Division Data Team Lead, OSEP

2. Welcome and Introductions
Introduction of speakers

3. Objectives What is IDEA Assessment Data? Where is the data reported?
Assessment MetaData Survey
OSEP Review and Feedback
How do they review?
Data Quality Reports
Data Notes
Ensuring Data Quality
Challenges Discussion

4. What is IDEA Assessment Data?
Statewide Assessment Data
Alternate Assessment
Subset of all Assessment Data

5. Where is this data reported?
EDFacts Files
SPP/APR
CSPR

6. Where is the Assessment MetaData reported?
Assessment MetaData Survey – submitted via EMAPS
Open / reopen periods align with assessment data open /reopen periods
Respondents: State Assessment Director
Read only access for Part B Data Managers & EDFacts Coordinators
How is it used?
Used to cross validate State’s assessment data submission
Used in OSEP’s evaluation of completeness
Used to determine which counts are considered proficient/ to calculate percent proficient
Resource: Assessment Metadata Survey User Guide

7. When are the data submitted/ resubmitted?
Assessment data have 3 open/ reopen periods:
December due date
Data used for OSEP’s evaluation of timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of the data submission
Feb/ March reopen period:
Opportunity for States to resubmit assessment data or data notes to explain data quality inquires
April reopen period:
Final resubmission period
Assessment data in the system as of the end of this resubmission period is used for public reporting and associated data products

8. How does OSEP Review the Assessment Data?
Timeliness
Are the data in the appropriate EDFacts system by the due date?
Completeness
Are data for all relevant file specifications submitted?
Are data for all category sets, subtotals, and totals submitted?
Do data match responses in the metadata sources?
Accuracy
Do data meet our edit checks?
LEA Roll up Comparison
Are there large differences between the sum of the counts reported at the LEA level compared to the counts reported at the SEA level?

9. Data Quality Review - Timeliness
SEA level assessment data on children with disabilities (IDEA) are submitted to the EDFacts submission systems (ESS) by the December due date and time:
C175 — Academic Achievement in Mathematics
C178 — Academic Achievement in Reading (Language Arts)
C185 — Assessment Participation in Mathematics
C188 — Assessment Participation in Reading/Language Arts

10. Data Quality Review - Completeness
Achievement data reported in ESS aligns to data reported in EMAPS by subject (M, RLA), assessment type, grade and performance level.
Data are flagged if not aligned.
Participation data reported in ESS aligns to data reported in EMAPS by subject (M, RLA), assessment type and grade.
Note: Zero counts are required at the SEA level.

11. Data Quality Review - Accuracy
For mathematics/ reading by grade and assessment type, the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who took an assessment and received a valid score (reported in C175/ C178) should equal the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in an assessment (reported in C185/ C188).
Data are flagged if counts do not match or data are blank.
By assessment type, the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who took an assessment and received a valid score reported in C175/ C178 should be reported at the same grade level as the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in an assessment reported in C185/ C188.
Data are flagged if grade levels are misaligned.
Limited to HS grade misalignment

12. Communication of Data Quality Inquiries
OSEP’s comments/ data quality inquiries communicated via Data Quality Report (DQR)
During February:
Partner Support Center (PSC) sends out an to Assessment Directors, EDFacts Coordinators, and Part B Data Managers with the comments on the assessment data submissions from OESE/ OSS and OSEP
OSEP also posts the DQR for the IDEA Assessment data on OMB Max.
During March:
If data quality inquiries remain, PSC sends out another to same group of recipients

13. Data Quality Reports
OSEP’s communication tool regarding the State’s data submission
Provides State with:
OSEP’s evaluation of the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of the State’s data submission
OSEP’s data quality inquiries
OSEP’s expectation to either resubmit data/ metadata or provide an explanation in the form of a data note
Locations:
Posted on OMB Max
ed with the CSPR comments to Part B Data Managers (as well as the Assessment Director & EDFacts Coordinator)

14. Data Notes
Opportunity for the State to clarify situation(s) associated with the submission of the assessment data and metadata
Possible situations:
Data collection or reporting anomalies
Relevant changes in assessments or data collection/ reporting processes from previous year
Implementation of new assessments, initiatives, processes that may impact data or metadata
Opportunity for the State to respond to OSEP’s data quality inquiries
Data Notes submitted by States may be provided to the public to accompany the public release data file

15. What does OSEP do with the Data?
APR:
Pre-populate the APR for Part B indicator 3
Evaluation of data submission
Part B Results Matrix
Data Display
Public Release Data File
Static Tables
Ad hoc requests (i.e., targeted analyses of previously collected data)

16. Public reporting of IDEA assessment data
If the difference between participation and performance counts results in more than a 1 percentage point increase or decrease in the percent proficient, the number of students with disabilities who scored at or above proficient on the assessment and the number of students with disabilities who took that type of assessment were suppressed from the public file.
High school data is reported as HS and all grades are rolled up together into a total count grades 9-12.

17. How does that translate into what happens at the SEA Level?
Lessons Learned from Nevada

18. Validating Assessment Data
What to validate for:
Accuracy is if the total participants are equal to the total number of performance scores.
Completeness is if the EDFacts data matches the Assessment Metadata Survey.

19. Across file comparison Language Arts
The number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who took a Reading assessment and received a valid score (FS 178) for regular assessments based on grade level achievement standards must equal the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in the assessment (FS 188).

20. Across file comparison Math
The number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who took a Math assessment and received a valid score (FS 175) for regular assessments based on grade level achievement standards must equal the number of students with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in the assessment (FS 185).

21. Achievement metadata matching
Achievement data (FS 175) submitted for regular assessments based on grade level achievement standards with and without accommodations has data for all performance levels (ex. PERF LEVEL 1-4)
SEA data file must include all performance levels (ex. PERF LEVEL 1-4) for all data categories including zero counts.

22. Participation metadata
Participation data (FS 185) submitted for assessments based on grade level achievement standards with and without accommodations must match the grades offered within EMAPS assessment metadata survey.

23. Comparison between C185 and CSPR

24. Comparison between APR and CSPR

25. Open Discussion
What are the challenges you face with submitting and updating Assessment Data?
What would make the process easier?

26. Questions? Any remaining questions? Contact Us
Anne Rainey, Part B Data Manager, MT
Nick Easter, Ed.D., Part B Data Manager, NV
Meredith Miceli, Research to Practice Division, OSEP