Using Data for Program Improvement

State and Local Activities in MinnesotaLisa Backer: 619 Coordinator/Part C Data Manager

Loraine Jensen: Part C Coordinator

Understanding & Investment Program Evaluation & Continuous

Improvement process initiated Minnesota Department of Education in1999.

Began public reporting of local data in 2004

Ongoing focus on data quality as precursor to data use

Understanding & Investment State staff work to model use of data Attention paid to District Data Profiles Web-based process developed by

Divisions of Compliance & Assistance and Special Education Policy with support from Early Learning

Graduation RatesDropout RatesStudent AchievementSuspensions & ExpulsionsFederal Instructional Settings

6-213-50-2

Child Find (Part C)Part C Family Outcomes

Program EvaluationProgram EvaluationMnCIMP: Self ReviewMnCIMP: Self Review

Districts Must…

…review their performance on indicators compared to state rate and target.

When performance is below state rate: Identify and explain main problem(s) Analyze the relevant elements and facts Hypothesize: State one or more causes for the

main problem based on the evidence. Determine degree of need: Low, Medium or High

Action Plan Development

Required when district determines a high degree of need on any indicator

OR

When the district’s response rate on the Part C Family Outcomes Survey is less than 50%

SMART Checklist for Action Plans

Specific – focused and clearly stated;directly based on data that demonstrates a problem

Measurable – outcomes that can be measured and concrete criteria for measuring progress is stated

Attainable – achievableRealistic - This is not a synonym for “easy.” Realistic,

in this case, means “do-able” within the availability of resources, knowledge and time

Timely - a timeline is associated with implementation

TimelinesNotificationEvaluation StandardsEligibility ChecklistsIEP/IFSP StandardsBehavior & DisciplineLongitudinal ChecklistsComments

Student Record ReviewMnCIMP: Self-Review

Analysis and Action Plans Reviewed Annually by MDE Divisions

A Tale of Two Indicators

Part C Child Find

45-day Evaluation Timeline

Once Upon A Time….

Evidence, Inference, Action

U.S. rate 2004: 2.3% (48th B-2; 50th <1)

CII-3 Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Served

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

% 0-2 1.21% 1.25% 1.28% 1.36% 1.43%

% <1 0.38% 0.39% 0.35% 0.45% 0.43%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Evidence, Inference, Action

Proportion of MN infants and toddlers on IFSPs is lower than the nation

Our public awareness and outreach system must be ineffective in reaching primary referral sources, including parents

We may have more children served by medically-based providers than other states

Evidence, Inference, Action

Active outreach through local Interagency Early Intervention Committees to physicians, child care, Early Childhood Family Education, parents

Worked to expand Early Hearing Detection Intervention system

Made local performance data available

Published Local Performance

Region % < Age 1 % 0-2

1 .42% 1.40%

2 .43% 1.32%

3 .46% 1.05%

4 .50% 1.79%

5 .46% 1.66%

6 .53% 1.31%

7 .46% 1.34%

8 .39% 1.26%

9 .69% 2.20%

10 .41% 1.46%

11 .40% 1.35%

OSEP Verification Visit: 8/2004

From Verification Letter 3/2005:

“OSEP has determined that the State is not implementing eligibility criteria for Part C services that are consistent with Part C or its approved Part C application….

Action Steps

Revised definition of Developmental Delay for Birth through Two and Three through six Formal rulemaking process Stakeholder group Consensus Public Hearings

Action Steps

Training and Technical Assistance Public Awareness and Outreach

Statewide Identity TV Broadcasts in multiple languages Podcasts New Website Local Efforts

1-866-693-GROW (4769)www.mnparentsknow.info

Statewide Identify

Graduation RatesDropout RatesStudent AchievementSuspensions & ExpulsionsFederal Instructional Settings

6-213-50-2

Child Find (Part C)Part C Family Outcomes

Program EvaluationProgram EvaluationMnCIMP: Self ReviewMnCIMP: Self Review

Birth – Age 2 Child Find: MN & US Trends Over Time

0

1

2

3

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Minnesota U.S.

A Short Story: 45-day Timeline

Once upon a time….

…two large urban Minnesota districts struggled to meet Part C’s 45 day evaluation timeline for Part C.

Districts A & B and Minnesota

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

District A District B Minnesota

OSEP Verification Visit 9/2009

“State failed to make findings of noncompliance or to take action to require correction on the 45-day timeline requirement.”

Support and Findings for A & BMDE has worked with Districts A & B to… identify and overcome barriers, improve documentation of exceptional

child and family circumstances Target use of ARRA funds to build

immediately and sustainable capacity Verify correction of non-compliance

Short-term Success

Each district has informally reported achieving 100% compliance over a full month’s time.

….And we all lived happily ever after!