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

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 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.

Legal References for the CSPR Title VIII. General Provisions, Part C, Section 8303, Consolidated Reporting (ESEA, as amended through P.L. 114-95). 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. 2

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

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 ED Facts 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

SY 2015-16 CSPR Data Quality Results 5

CSPR Comparison Data SY 2011-12 through SY 2015-16 Total Number of Data Quality Errors 300 245 250 200 174 150 140 104 100 68 50 0 SY 2011-12 SY 2012-13 SY 2013-14 SY 2014-15 SY 2015-16 6

SY 2015-16 CSPR Results: No Significant Data Quality Issues  Arkansas  Georgia  Hawaii  Illinois 100% Within Data  Indiana Check Sheet  Kansas Parameters  Maine  Maryland  Michigan  Montana  Nebraska  New Jersey  Ohio Bold and Italicized =  Pennsylvania Minimum Two Consecutive Years  South Carolina  Vermont  Wisconsin 7

SY 2015-16 CSPR Results Number of SY 2014-15 Part 2.3 Data Quality Issues 40 2.3.1 Child Counts and Narratives 31 2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children 2.3.3 RY Services 20 2.3.4 S/I Services 20 2.3.5 Performance Period Services 11 2.3.6 School Data RY 2.3.7 MEP Project Data 3 1 1 1 0 2.3.8 MEP Personnel Data 0 8

SY 2015-16 CSPR Top Data Quality Issues 9

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

Data Quality Issues: General Information 11

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

2.3.1 Child Counts Data Quality Issue #1 13

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

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children Data Quality Issue #2 15

2.3.2 Eligible Migrant Children Eligible Migrant Children 2.3.2.5 (QAD RY) 2.3.2.4 (QAD PP) Age/Grade Qualifying Arrival Date During Qualifying Arrival Date the Regular School Year During the Performance QAD PP, in (Sep. – Jun.) Period MOST (Sep. – Aug.) cases, will be equal or Age birth through 2 15 200 higher than Age 3 through 5 35 215 (not Kindergarten) the QAD K 20 255 RY 1 30 28 16

2.3.5 Performance Period Services Data Quality Issue #3 17

2.3.5 Performance Period Services  Nested Data (compared to eligible population)  Increases/decreases of >25% 18

Questions? Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box. 19

SY 2016-17: Changes to MEP CSPR and ED Facts File Specifications 20

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”). 21

SY 2016-17 MEP CSPR Changes  2.3.1.1 (Category 1 Child Count, and throughout the 2.3 CSPR): 22

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box. 28

MEP ED Facts File Specification Changes Changes in File Specifications:  C054  C065  C121  C145 29

MEP ED Facts 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

MEP ED Facts 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

MEP ED Facts 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

MEP ED Facts 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

Questions? Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box. 34

SY 2017-18: Changes to MEP CSPR 35

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

Questions? Please submit any questions that you may have about the webinar’s content through the chat box. 37

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