CSPR Part II: Results and Changes for SY 2016-17 Migrant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
cspr part ii results and changes for sy 2016 17
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CSPR Part II: Results and Changes for SY 2016-17 Migrant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 15, 2022 11 likes •404 views

CSPR Part II: Results and Changes for SY 2016-17 Migrant Education Program (MEP) Webinar October 26, 2017 2:00 pm 4:00 pm EDT OME Missio n T o pro vide e xc e lle nt le a de rship, te c hnic a l a ssista nc e , a nd fina nc ia l suppo

slide-1
SLIDE 1

OME Missio n T

  • pro vide e xc e lle nt le a de rship, te c hnic a l a ssista nc e , a nd fina nc ia l suppo rt to impro ve the

e duc a tio na l o ppo rtunitie s a nd a c a de mic suc c e ss o f mig ra nt c hildre n, yo uth, a g ric ultural wo rke rs, fishe rs, a nd the ir fa milie s.

CSPR Part II: Results and Changes for SY 2016-17

Migrant Education Program (MEP) Webinar October 26, 2017 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm EDT

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Legal References for the CSPR

2

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, March, 2017, Chapter IX. Program Performance and Child Count Reporting, pages 96-105. Title VIII. General Provisions, Part C, Section 8303, Consolidated Reporting (ESEA, as amended through P.L. 114-95).

slide-3
SLIDE 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.

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

CSPR Part II Webinar Objectives

Participants will: 1) Review SY 2015-16 CSPR data quality results, 2) Review the SY 2015-16 CSPR top data quality issues, 3) Review changes to the CSPR and EDFacts files specifications for SY 2016-17, and 4) Prepare for changes to the SY 2017-18 CSPR So that MEP directors may submit accurate CSPR data.

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

SY 2015-16 CSPR Data Quality Results

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

CSPR Comparison Data

SY 2011-12 through SY 2015-16

245 174 104 140 68 50 100 150 200 250 300 SY 2011-12 SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16

Total Number of Data Quality Errors

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

SY 2015-16 CSPR Results: No Significant Data Quality Issues

 Arkansas  Georgia  Hawaii  Illinois  Indiana  Kansas  Maine  Maryland  Michigan  Montana  Nebraska  New Jersey  Ohio  Pennsylvania  South Carolina  Vermont  Wisconsin

7

100% Within Data Check Sheet Parameters Bold and Italicized = Minimum Two Consecutive Years

slide-8
SLIDE 8

SY 2015-16 CSPR Results

8

31 11 3 1 20 1 1 20 40 Number of SY 2014-15 Part 2.3 Data Quality Issues

2.3.1 Child Counts and Narratives 2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children 2.3.3 RY Services 2.3.4 S/I Services 2.3.5 Performance Period Services 2.3.6 School Data RY 2.3.7 MEP Project Data 2.3.8 MEP Personnel Data

slide-9
SLIDE 9

SY 2015-16 CSPR Top Data Quality Issues

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

SY 2015-16 CSPR General Information and Top 3 Data Quality Issues

 General Information  2.3.1. Child Counts  2.3.2. Eligible Migrant Children  2.3.5. MEP Services – Performance Period

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Data Quality Issues: General Information

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

General Information

  • We recommend that you use the Data Check Sheet to determine if

you need to review year-to-year increases/decreases of 25%, and to determine if your State’s nested data is inconsistent.

  • If you have a year-to-year increase/decrease of 25%, remember to

place a specific comment in the comment box.

  • Review all data before submission.

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

2.3.1 Child Counts Data Quality Issue #1

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

2.3.1 Child Counts

  • Address ALL the requirements for Methods Used to Count Children

(2.3.1.3.3). Specifically, address how the State MEP counts two- year-olds who turn three years of age; how high school graduates will NOT be included in the subsequent year’s counts (SY 2017- 18).

  • Address the requirements for Quality Control Processes (2.3.1.3.4).

OME has clarified re-interviewing questions.

  • If your State has used the same processes in 2.3.1.3.3 as in SY

2015-16, ensure that you have changed important dates in the narratives to reflect SY 2016-17 (e.g., SY, QAD, etc.).

  • Counts of eligible children in grades three through eight and high

school who were assessed normally should be a subset of counts of eligible children in these grades.

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children Data Quality Issue #2

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children

Eligible Migrant Children

2.3.2.5 (QAD RY) 2.3.2.4 (QAD PP)

16

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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2.3.5 Performance Period Services Data Quality Issue #3

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

2.3.5 Performance Period Services

  • Nested Data (compared to eligible population)
  • Increases/decreases of >25%

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Questions?

Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box.

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

SY 2016-17: Changes to MEP CSPR and EDFacts File Specifications

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

  • ut of school (rather than dropped out only during

“the previous performance period”).

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes

  • 2.3.1.1 (Category 1 Child Count, and

throughout the 2.3 CSPR):

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes

 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.

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

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)

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

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.  Therefore, you MAY count these children for services, but NOT count them in Category 1 or 2 counts.

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

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).

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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.

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Questions?

Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box.

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specifications:

  • C054
  • C065
  • C121
  • C145

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specification C054, MEP Students Served:

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

17

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

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specification C065, MEP Students Served:

  • File no longer contains MEP-specific information,

including MEP Personnel FTE and Headcount.

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specification C121, MEP Students Served:

  • 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.

32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

MEP EDFacts File Specification Changes

Changes in File Specification C145, MEP Students Served:

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

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Questions?

Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box.

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

SY 2017-18: Changes to MEP CSPR

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

SY 2017-18 CSPR Changes

OME has received recommendations from the MEP Coordination Workgroup (CWG) and staff.

  • Proposed changes will be available during the upcoming

public comment period.

  • Please review proposed changes and suggest new ways

to focus the MEP CSPR data collection.

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Questions?

Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box.

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

REMINDER

On Tuesday, November 2, 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. See you then!

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

T HANK YOU!

Edward Monaghan Edward.Monaghan@ed.gov Preeti Choudhary Preeti.Choudhary@ed.gov

Pa rtne r Support Ce nte r (PSC) Conta c t Informa tion:

T e le pho ne : 877-457-3336 (877-HL P-E DE N) F a x: 888-329-3336 (888-F AX-E DE N) T T Y/ T DD: 888-403-3336 (888-403-E DE N) E

  • ma il: E

DE N_SS@ e d.g o v We b site : http:/ / www2.e d.g o v/ a b o ut/ inits/ e d/ e dfa c ts/ inde x.html Ho urs o f Ope ra tio n: 8:00 a .m. - 6:00 p.m. E a ste rn T ime , Mo nda y- F rida y. E xc luding fe de ra l ho lida ys.

39