CSPR Part II: Results and Upcoming Changes

Migrant Education Program (MEP) Webinar October 27, 2016

2:00 pm – 4:00 pm EDT

Legal References for the CSPR Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6511(a).

Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR 76.720

Applies to a State’s reports required under 2 CFR 200.328 (Monitoring and Reporting of Program Performance) and 2 CFR 200.327 (Financial Reporting).

Guidance: MEP Guidance, October, 2010,

Chapter IX. Program Performance and Child Count Reporting, pages 108-117.

2

Webinar Objectives

Participants will: • Review SY 2014-15 MEP CSPR data quality results, • Review the SY 2014-15 CSPR top data quality issues, • Review changes to the CSPR and EDFacts files

specifications for SY 2015-16, and • Review changes to the CSPR and EDFacts files

specifications for SY 2016-17 So that MEP directors may submit accurate CSPR data.

3

Purpose of CSPR Webinars OME seeks to: • Improve resources to assist State MEPs in fulfilling data

reporting requirements, and • Improve “first-submission” accuracy by providing

examples and data quality tools to State MEPs

4

CSPR Comparison Data SY 2011-12 through SY 2014-15

Total Number of Data Quality Errors SY 2011-12 245

SY 2012-13 174

SY 2013-14 104

SY 2014-15 140

5

SY 2014-15 CSPR Results: No Significant Data Quality Issues Arkansas Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa New Hampshire Oregon Pennsylvania

6

100% Within Data

Check Sheet Parameters

Bold and Italicized = Minimum Two Consecutive Years

SY 2014-15 CSPR Results CSPR Section Number of Data Quality Issues

2.3.1 Child Counts and Narratives 53

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children 24

2.3.3 RY Services 4

2.3.4 S/I Services 5

2.3.5 Performance Period Services 37

2.3.6 School Data RY 4

2.3.7 MEP Project Data 5

2.3.8 MEP Personnel Data 8

7

SY 2014-15 CSPR Top 3 Data Quality Issues

1) 2.3.1. Child Counts 2.3.1.3.3 Methods Used to Count Children (31 DQ Issues) 2.3.1.3.4 Quality Control Processes (13 DQ Issues)

2) 2.3.2. Eligible Migrant Children 2.3.2.4 QAD – Performance Period (5 DQ Issues) 2.3.2.5 QAD – Regular Year (6 DQ Issues)

3) 2.3.5. Performance Period Services 2.3.5.3.1 - Type of Instructional Service (9 DQ Issues) 2.3.5.3.2 – Support Services w/Breakout for Counseling (11 DQ

Issues)

8

2.3.1 Child Counts

Data Quality Issue #1

9

2.3.1.3.3 Child Count Narratives Collects information about the methods that States use

to collect counts of migrant students. When providing a written response, ensure that you describe your state-specific information as it applies to eligibility requirements.

10

2.3.1.3.3 Child Count Narratives: General Instructions

The State’s written response MUST describe its process for only including children who were at least three years of age and less than 22 years of age for at least one day of the performance period of 9/1/2015 to 8/31/2016 and met all of the program eligibility criteria, including the following criteria:

11

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Ages 3-21

Only children ages 3-21. e.g., the State’s algorithm accounts for the child’s

date of birth such that the child was at least three years of age and less than 22 years of age for at least one day of the performance period of 9/1/2015 to 8/31/2016.

12

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: QAD

Only children who were within 36 months of a QAD.

e.g., the State MEP database automatically

calculates an end of eligibility date 36 months from every child’s qualifying arrival date. The State’s algorithm then ensures that each child’s end of eligibility date does not occur before 9/1/2015.

13

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: 2-Year Olds Turning Three

Only children who resided in your State for at least one day during the child count period; for 2-year olds who turned three during the child count period, include a description of the State’s process for ensuring that these two year olds resided in your State for at least one day after they turned three years old.

14

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: 2-Year Olds Turning Three

Example

e.g., MEP staff conducted a home visit after

September 1 and before August 31 for every child included in the Category 1 count to verify their residency in the State. Residency verification for two year olds turning three occurred only after children turned three years of age. A residency date is then recorded in the State’s data system. The State’s child count algorithm ensures that only children with a residency date between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2016 are included in the Category 1 Count.

15

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: High School Graduation or Equivalency

Only children who have not graduated from high school or attain a high school equivalency diploma.

16

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: High School Graduation or

Equivalency Example

e.g., upon receipt of information from local

projects, the State’s data coordinator flags children whose eligibility has been terminated for reasons such as: graduated from high school, earned a high school equivalency, or died. These students are included in the Category 1 and 2 counts for the reporting period, but are not included in subsequent counts because the State’s child count algorithm excludes children with termination codes.

17

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: High School Graduation or Equivalency Solution

This criterion was somewhat confusing and

is eliminated, because some students are eligible

and graduated in the performance period.

Only children who have not

graduated from high school or attain a high school equivalency diploma.

e.g., upon receipt of

information from local projects, the State’s data coordinator flags children whose eligibility has been terminated for reasons such as: graduated from high school, earned a high school equivalency, or died. These students are included in the Category 1 and 2 counts for the reporting period, but are not included in subsequent counts because the State’s child count algorithm excludes children with termination codes.

18

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Eliminate Duplicate Records Only unique children in Category 1, and eliminate

duplicate students within its State MEP database. e.g., once the student has a record in the State

MEP database, local operating agencies (LOAs) verify their child counts by using other MEP database reports, certificates of eligibility (COEs), data entry logs, the maximum enrollment line for Category 1, and local databases to ensure that all identified students have been included in the Category 1 and Category 2 Counts and to eliminate any duplications.

19

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Category 2 As a Subset of

Category 1

For the Category 2 count, only a subset of the Category 1 children who received a MEP – funded service during the summer or intersession term.

20

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Category 2 As a Subset of

Category 1 Example

e.g., for each new or updated COE for the Category 1 Count, a history line with an "R" (regular term enrollment) or "P" (participant or residency only for a student who is not enrolled in school) flag is created in the State data system. A history line with an "S" (summer school enrollment) or "I" (year round school intersession enrollment) flag is created for each summer enrollment for the Category 2 Count. In order for a child to be counted in the Category 2 Count, he or she must meet all of the above criteria and have an “S” or “I” flag associated with his/her history line during the corresponding child count reporting period. Additionally, in order to count a child for a summer service, the child must have turned three before receiving the service.

21

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Tested Students <= Eligible Students

For the Second Box in Section 2.3.1.3.3 - How

does the State ensure that the system that transmits migrant data to the Department accurately accounts for all the migrant children in every EDFacts data file?

22

2.3.1.3.3 Criterion: Tested Students <= Eligible

Students Example The State’s information MUST include a statement about the

specific process that the State uses to ensure that all migrant children counted in every EDFacts file are matched with migrant children contained within the State’s database and the State’s migrant specific database. This process should ensure that all migrant children who participate in statewide assessments ARE identified as eligible migrant children within the State’s migrant specific database and that all eligible migrant children within the State’s migrant specific database ARE APPROPRIATELY CODED AND REPORTED as part of the migrant subgroup for State assessments. While every State may have a different process, the process of matching migrant children in each database is typically accomplished through a process using multiple fields that are contained in both the migrant specific database and the State’s database.

23

2.3.1.3.4 Quality Control Processes Eligibility Table

Quality Control Processes Yes/No

Is student eligibility based on a personal interview (face-to-face or phone call) with a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult, or youth-as-worker?

Yes

Does the SEA and/or regional offices train recruiters at least annually on eligibility requirements, including the basic eligibility definition, economic necessity, temporary vs. seasonal, processing, etc.?

Yes

Does the SEA have a formal process, beyond the recruiter's determination, for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of written eligibility information [e.g., COEs are reviewed and initialed by the recruiter's supervisor and/or other reviewer(s)]?

Yes

Are incomplete or otherwise questionable COEs returned to the recruiter for correction, further explanation, documentation, and/or verification?

Yes

Does the SEA provide recruiters with written eligibility guidance (e.g., a handbook)? Yes Does the SEA review student attendance records at summer/inter-session projects to verify that the total unduplicated number of eligible migrant students served in the summer/intersession is reconciled with the Category 2 Count ?

Yes

Does the SEA have both a local and state-level process for resolving eligibility questions? Yes Are written procedures provided to regular school year and summer/intersession personnel on how to collect and report pupil enrollment and withdrawal data?

Yes

Are records/data entry personnel provided training on how to review regular school year and summer/inter-session site records, input data, and run reports used for child count purposes?

Yes

Ensure all questions

are answered.

24

2.3.1.3.4 Quality Control Processes

Re-Interview Table

Results #

The number of eligibility determinations sampled. 224

The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed.

103

The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed and the child was found eligible

97

25

2.3.1.3.4 Quality Control Processes Eligibility Determination Table

Results #

The number of eligibility determinations sampled. 224

The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed.

103

The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed and the child was found eligible

110

Note: The number of eligible determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed and the child was found eligible should not be greater than the number of eligible determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed.

26

2.3.1.3.4 Quality Control Processes Explanations for Ineligible

27

2.3.1.3.4. In the space below, refer to the results of any re-interview processes used by the SEA, and if any of the migrant children were found ineligible, describe those corrective actions or improvements that will be made by the SEA to improve the accuracy of its MEP eligibility determinations.

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children Data Quality Issue #2

28

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children

Age/Grade Qualifying Arrival Date During the Regular School Year (Sep. – Jun.)

Qualifying Arrival Date During the Performance Period (Sep. – Aug.)

Age birth through 2 15 200 Age 3 through 5 (not Kindergarten) 35 215

K 20 255 1 30 28

QAD PP, in MOST

cases, will be equal or higher than

the QAD RY

29

2.3.5 Performance Period

Services Data Quality Issue #3

30

2.3.5 Performance Period Services

Nested Data (compared to eligible population, 25%

variation explanations)

31

2.3.5 Performance Period Services: Nested Tables

The number of students receiving various types of services

should not be higher than the total number of students receiving services in the performance period.

32

2.3.5 Performance Period Services: Nested Tables Example

Received Reading Instructional Services PP: Total = 500 Received Instructional Services in the PP: Total = 475

For example: The number of students received reading instructional services should not be higher than the total number

of students received instructional services in the performance period.

33

MEP Section 2.3 and EDFacts: How Do We Know We Have It Right?

C145 (Services), C054 (PFS Served PP),C192 (PFS Served RY & S/I), C122 (S/I Served)

C121 (Eligible, B-2 and ages 3-21)

The “served” population will be a

subset of your eligible population.

34

SY 2015-16: No Significant Changes to

MEP CSPR and

EDFacts File Specifications

35

SY 2015-16 MEP CSPR Clarifications

2.3.1.3.3 (Methods Used to Count Children): The State includes and counts only “Children who are

eligible for a free appropriate public education (e.g., have not yet obtained a high school diploma or equivalent).”

Most recent year that the MEP conducted independent prospective re-interviews: either SY 2015-16 or SY 20__-__.

36

SY 2015-16 EDFacts Changes: File Specification 054 (MEP Students Served)

2.4 Guidance clarifies: Children reported in Category Set A (Migrant Served),

Category Set B (Migrant PFS), and Category Set C (Continuation of Service)

37

SY 2015-16 EDFacts Changes: File Specification 121

(Eligible Migrant Children) 2.4 Guidance Clarifies:

Determination of eligibility (age, eligibility, and residency) QAD (permitted value = LQM), mobility status (RY and PP) BT2 population Student counts by age/grade Student counts for 5-year olds Procedures for tracking migrant children Errors in child count submissions

38

SY 2015-16 EDFacts Changes:

File Specification 122 (MEP Students Served Summer/Intersession)

2.4 Guidance Clarifies:

Determination of eligibility (age, eligibility, and residency) QAD (permitted value = LQM), mobility status (RY and PP) BT2 population Student counts by age/grade Student counts for 5 year olds Errors in child count submissions

39

SY 2015-16 EDFacts Changes: File Specification 145

(MEP Services) 2.4 Guidance Clarifies:

Student counts by age/grade Out of School definition Student counts for 5 year olds

40

SY 2015-16 EDFacts Changes: File Specification 192

(MEP Priority for Services) 2.4 Guidance Clarifies:

Student counts by age/grade Student counts for 5 year olds

41

SY 2016-17: Changes to MEP CSPR

and EDFacts File Specifications

42

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes

2.3.1 (Migrant Child Counts): Increased accountability to submit accurate Child

Counts OSY FAQ: Include students who have dropped

out of school (rather than dropped out only during “the previous performance period”).

43

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes:

2.3.1.1 (Category 1 Child Count, and throughout the 2.3 CSPR)

44

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes: Highest Age/Grade Level

Count a child who moved from one age/grade level to

another during the performance period only once in the age/grade category in which s/he spent the majority of his/her time while residing in the State, during the performance period.

Why? In some cases, the “highest age/grade level” yielded numbers of students who enrolled in the next grade level in the subsequent school year, leading to data challenges when comparing eligible / assessed / services data.

45

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes: 2.3.1.3.4 (Quality Control Processes)

If independent prospective interviews were not

administered in any of the three performance periods, please provide an explanation in the “Comment” row at the end of the table. (SY 2014-15, SY 2015-16, SY 2016-17)

46

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes: 2.3.3 (Services for Eligible Migrant Children)

Migrant children who are not included in your State’s

Category I or Category II child counts because they did not reside in your State for at least one day during the performance period (e.g., interstate collaboration), but who were eligible in another State and received instructional services funded in whole or in part with MEP funds in your State. If you report such children, please provide an explanatory comment in the comment box for each relevant CSPR question.

47

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes: 2.3.5.3.1 (Type of Instructional Service –

During the Performance Period)

Beginning with SY 2016-17, high school credit accrual may include the age/grade categories of Grade 8 through Grade 12 (formerly Grade 9 through Grade 12).

48

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes:

2.3.8 (MEP Personnel Data) 2.3.8.1 (MEP State Director)

Beginning with SY 2016-17, States will not report MEP State Director FTE.

2.3.8.2 (MEP Staff) Beginning with SY 2016-17, States will not report

MEP Personnel Data.

49

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specifications: C054 C065 C121 C145

50

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes: C054

File is NOT reported at LEA level, beginning in SY 2016-

17 Age/Grade definition change Out-of-School definition change Dropout definition change

51

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes: C065

File no longer contains MEP-specific information,

including MEP Personnel FTE and Headcount

52

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes: C121

File no longer requires Race/Ethnicity information for the

following age/grade categories: B-2, 3-5 (not K), and OSY, in Category Set A.

Definition of Referred Services included, and file now includes Referred Services.

QAD replaces LQM. 53

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes: C145

Removed “Referred Services” from file. Only “Eligible” and served, rather than “participating.” Eighth grade students may be counted in Credit Accrual.

54

REMINDER

On Tuesday, November 8, we will provide training on the CSPR Part II Data Check Tool, and show directors how the CSPR Part II Rating Instrument is used in the OME review.

55

THANK YOU!

Edward Monaghan Edward.Monaghan@ed.gov Preeti Choudhary Preeti.Choudhary@ed.gov Partner Support Center (PSC) Contact Information:

Telephone: 877-457-3336 (877-HLP-EDEN) Fax: 888-329-3336 (888-FAX-EDEN) TTY/TDD: 888-403-3336 (888-403-EDEN) E-mail: EDEN_SS@ed.gov Website: EDFacts InitiativeHyperlink

Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday-Friday. Excluding federal holidays.

56