1. Using Data for Program Improvement State and Local Activities in Minnesota Lisa Backer: 619 Coordinator/Part C Data Manager Loraine Jensen: Part C Coordinator

2. 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

3. 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

5. Graduation Rates Dropout Rates Student Achievement Suspensions & Expulsions Federal Instructional Settings 6-21 3-5 0-2 Child Find (Part C) Part C Family Outcomes Program Evaluation MnCIMP: Self Review

6. 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

10. 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%

12. 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 – achievable Realistic - 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

13. Timelines Notification Evaluation Standards Eligibility Checklists IEP/IFSP Standards Behavior & Discipline Longitudinal Checklists Comments Student Record Review MnCIMP: Self-Review

14. Analysis and Action Plans Reviewed Annually by MDE Divisions

15. A Tale of Two Indicators Part C Child Find 45-day Evaluation Timeline

16. Once Upon A Time….

17. Evidence, Inference, Action U.S. rate 2004: 2.3% (48 th B-2; 50 th <1)

18. 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

19. 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

20. Published Local Performance

21. 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….

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

23. Action Steps Training and Technical Assistance Public Awareness and Outreach  Statewide Identity  TV Broadcasts in multiple languages  Podcasts  New Website  Local Efforts

24. 1-866-693-GROW (4769) www.mnparentsknow.info Statewide Identify

27. Graduation Rates Dropout Rates Student Achievement Suspensions & Expulsions Federal Instructional Settings 6-21 3-5 0-2 Child Find (Part C) Part C Family Outcomes Program Evaluation MnCIMP: Self Review

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

29. 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.

30. Districts A & B and Minnesota

31. 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.”

32. Support and Findings for A & B MDE 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

33. Short-term Success Each district has informally reported achieving 100% compliance over a full month’s time. ….And we all lived happily ever after!