No GSEG? Low Budget Data Initiative with High Dollar Impact

1. No GSEG?Low Budget Data Initiative with High Dollar Impact Lisa Backer 619 Co-Coordinator/ECSE Specialist MN Department of Education lisa.backer@state.mn.us

2. The Context A bit about Minnesota….

3. Minnesota is the birthplace of…. • Water-skiing • SPAM • Bob Dylan • Judy Garland • Target Stores • Prince

4. We are home to… • The Mall of America • The first professional wrestler to hold the office of Governor • The headwaters of the Mississippi River • The world’s largest ball of twine • Yes, I that says “twine”

6. MN Is “Birth Mandate” State • Education is the lead agency for Part C • Interagency agreements with MN Depts. Of Health and Human services • Free, Appropriate Public Education provided to young children from birth • Local efforts driven by Interagency Early Intervention Committees (IEIC’s)

7. MN’s Continuous Improvement Process • 2000: Completion of Self Assessment & Identification of 12 Priority Areas • 2001: Planning year for Areas 1-5 • 2002: Implementation of Areas 1-5 Planning year for Areas 6-8 • 2003: Implementation for Areas 1-8 Planning year for Areas 9-12

8. Workforce Diversity Child Find Mental Health Service Coordination Educational Results Inclusion Assistive Technology Transitions Accountability and Compliance Family Involvement Geographic Disparities Identified Priority Areas

9. Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process: Self Review (MnCIMP:SR) • Alternative to traditional compliance monitoring • 80% of all districts participate • Uses baseline data and tracks improvement in key areas • Graduation/dropout rates • Suspension/expulsion • Standardized test scores & Alternate Assessments • Least Restrictive Environments

10. MnCIMP: SR Process • Planning Phase • Initial program evaluation • Compliance self-review • Planning report submitted to MDE • Implementation • Data analysis • Impact of initiated improvement strategies • Report submitted to MDE

11. MnCIMP: SR Process • Verification Visit by MDE monitor and trained “peer” monitors • Report of visit generated by MDE and provided to district leadership and staff • Children served through Part C and 619 were planfully included in verification visit activities.

12. Questions Posed by OSEP • Is Minnesota identifying all eligible infants Birth to Age 1? • Do the identified infants & toddlers reflect the demographics of the local area ? • How effective are primary referral sources ?

13. And More Questions….. • Do primary referral sources differ by age (<1, 2, 3) ? • Are IEICs and their member agencies effectively identifying young children and their families? • Is there variability from one part of the state to another?

14. And Finally…. • The APR • Minnesota’s data SNAFU • Age on December 1 rather than September 1 • OSEP Verification Visit

15. ECSE

16. QBQ: The Questions Behind the Question • Who’s to blame? • Why are we so disorganized/dysfunctional? • Why won’t our administration fiscally support a better data system? • What can I do?

17. MN’s Existing Data System • MARSS System • Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System • Unique identifier assigned at time of enrollment • Initial evaluation • Determination of eligibility

18. District Race/Ethnicity Instructional Settings Gender Economic Indicator Mobility Indicator Home Primary Language Primary Disability Status End Codes Hours of Service (membership) Key Data Elements in MARSS

19. “Missing” Data Elements • Services by individual child • Child and Family Outcomes • Primary and Secondary Referral Sources

20. Part C Enhanced Data Collection • Added to existing “rogue” website • Set-up cost absorbed by existing State Improvement Grant • Data analysis done by staff from Department of Education • Mandatory participation by districts

26. Indicators

29. Areas of Quality • Child Find/Determining Eligibility • Functional Child Goals or Outcomes • Instructional Settings/Inclusion • Comprehensiveness & Intensity of Service • Routines-based, Transdisciplinary Intervention • Measuring Child Progress • Family Outcome Measures

30. ECSE Quality Indicators • Child Find/Determining Eligibility • Instructional Settings/Inclusion • Comprehensiveness & Intensity of Service • Measuring Child Progress • Family Outcome Measures

31. Child Find Indicators • Percent of general population <1 • Percent of general population 0 through 2 • Percent of general population 0 through 4 • Proportion of identified children from a racial/ethnic group compared to the racial/ethnic makeup of the general population

32. Additional Child Find Indicators • Use of a variety of disability criteria • Proportion of kindergarten enrollment initially determined eligible and the primary disabilities of those children. • Proportion of referrals made by specific primary and secondary sources

33. Child Progress • What percent of children served under age 3 demonstrates improved and sustained functional abilities? • Cognitive development; • physical development, including vision and hearing; • communication development; • social or emotional development; and • adaptive development.

34. Child Outcomes • Young children with disabilities entering kindergarten demonstrate increased levels of proficiency in the areas • Physical well-being and motor development • Social and Emotional Development • Approaches to learning • Language Development • Cognition • Creativity and the Arts

35. Comprehensiveness & Intensity • Local areas comprehensively identify needs and provide a full array of early intervention services. • A range of intensity is evident within each district’s ECSE program • By age? • By Primary Disability?

36. Natural Environments/LRE • Proportion of infants/toddlers served in natural environments • At home • In programs designed for children without disabilities • Proportion of children age 3 through 5 served in Early Childhood Settings or at Home

37. Family Participation • Supports, services and resources provided to each family increase the family’s capacity to enhance the development of their child.

38. Sometimes the Plants and Stars Align….. November, 2004

39. Putting Data to Work • Easy access • Ease of use • Meaningful comparisons • State • Region • Strata • To the individual district as trends over time • Accuracy

40. 2003-2004 ECSE District Profile • Based on Excel 2000 • Utilized “Lookup” functions • Displayed data on those indicators for which accurate data was available • Annually updateable • Will “live” on MDE website on the Continuous Improvement landing page

41. District Profile In Action