Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 20: State reported data (section 618, State Performance Plan (SPP) and APR) are timely and accurate.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
State reported data, including section 618 data, SPP, and APRs, are:
- Submitted on or before due dates (first Wednesday in February for child count, including race and ethnicity; and educational environments; first Wednesday in November for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; December 15 for assessment; May 1 for Maintenance of Effort & Coordinated Early Intervening Services; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports).
- Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.
States are required to use the “Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric” for reporting data for this indicator (see tables below).
New York State (NYS) will use State-selected data sources, including data from State data system and SPP/APR.
|Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)||Measurable and Rigorous Target|
(2011-12 school year)
|100 percent of State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are submitted on or before due dates and are accurate.|
Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:
100 percent of State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports were submitted on or before the due dates and are accurate.
|SPP/APR Data - Indicator 20|
|APR Indicator||Valid and Reliable||Correct Calculation||Total|
|APR Score Calculation||Timely Submission Points - If the FFY 2011 APR was submitted on-time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right.||5|
|Grand Total - (Sum of subtotal and Timely Submission Points) =||43.00|
|618 Data - Indicator 20|
|Table||Timely||Complete Data||Passed Edit Check||Responded to Data Note Requests||Total|
|Table 1 - Child Count
Due Date: 2/1/12
|Table 2 - Personnel
Due Date: 11/7/12
|Table 3 - Ed. Environments
Due Date: 2/1/12
|Table 4 - Exiting
Due Date: 11/7/12
|Table 5 - Discipline
Due Date: 11/7/12
|Table 6 - State Assessment
Due Date: 12/19/12
|Table 7 - Dispute Resolution
Due Date: 11/7/12
|Table 8 - MOE/CEIS Due Date: 5/1/12||1||1||N/A||N/A||2|
|618 Score Calculation||Grand Total Subtotal X 1.8695) =||43.00|
|Indicator #20 Calculation|
|A. APR Grand Total||43.00|
|B. 618 Grand Total||43.00|
|C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =||86.00|
|Total N/A in APR||0|
|Total N/A in 618||0|
|D. Subtotal (C divided by Base*) =||1.000|
|E. Indicator Score (Subtotal D x 100) =||100.00|
* Note any cell marked as N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 1.8695 for 618
Detailed information about the actions NYS is taking to ensure compliance is included below, including a description of New York’s mechanisms for ensuring error-free, consistent, valid and reliable data and evidence that these standards are met. Please note that targets for timeliness and accuracy are 100 percent.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011:
Explanation of Progress or Slippage
The State has an email notice from the EDEN system dated 10/22/2012 stating “The Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission System has processed your transmittal and detected no conditions that would generate errors and warnings” for all EDFacts files submitted to populate Table 5 (N/X 005, N/X 006, N/X 007, N/X 088, N/X 143, N/X 144). The State has since learned that our Table 5 data was incorrect because of problems with the N/X 088, N/X 005 and N/X 006 files that we were not aware of on the date the State submitted the APR. The State has submitted revised EDFacts files to correct the Table 5 errors. In N/X 005, the actual error was in the reporting of one school district on one student. The EDFacts submission reports that previously showed 1 error now shows no errors for the N/X 005. The N/X 006 file was inadvertently submitted with the wrong year in the header (2010-11 instead of 2011-12), so the EDEN system did not register that 2011-12 N/X 006 data had been submitted. The N/X 006 data was therefore not loaded into Table 5 and comparisons of N/X 006 data with N/X 088 data resulted in discrepancies. The N/X 006 file has been resubmitted with 2011-12 in the header row which has resolved the N/X 088 discrepancies.
NYSED's Part B IDEA Data Manager encountered account set-up issues with the OMB Max website and did not have access to the data quality report that would have alerted us to the Table 5 issues. The end of the five- year cooperative agreement with Westat and OSEP to operate the Data Accountability Center and the switch to the OMB Max System contributed to NYSED not receiving a communication on the Table 5 error. The State has no record of any other email notification that would have provided the State the opportunity to correct the Table 5 errors. Therefore, on the date the State submitted the APR, the State was unaware of any error in Table 5.
Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12
- The State continued its participation in the monthly technical assistance calls hosted by the United States Education Department Office of Special Education.
- The State regularly reviewed The Right IDEA website for technical assistance resources, information and documentation that can be utilized to improve State Performance Plan results.
- Annual activities completed to ensure error-free, consistent, valid and reliable section 618 data and evidence that these standards are met include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Implement numerous edit checks at Level 0 of our State’s data warehouse. These edit checks are reviewed and revised continuously to ensure data are reasonable.
- Implement additional edit checks at Level 1 of our State’s data warehouse. Require school districts to resolve any identified issues related to incomplete or inaccurate data identified at this level before the data are moved to the State’s Level 2 environment.
- Implement additional edit checks at Level 2 of the State’s data warehouse (much fewer checks compared to those implemented at L0 and L1). As an example, these edit checks allow the State to determine duplications in reporting the same student by two school districts and to resolve these types of issues before State data files are finalized.
- Implement additional edit checks and reasonability checks when school districts' individual student data are displayed in the various special education reports. These aggregated reports (with links to individual students’ data) assist school districts to compare some totals against previous year’s totals, and to review results of calculations to ensure individual students’ data are included accurately in the various calculations and aggregates.
- Provide technical assistance regarding data collection requirements and procedures continuously throughout the year. Technical assistance is also provided annually throughout the State in group format as requested by various regions and large cities of the State.
- Prepare written communications and documentation annually and throughout the year to provide data reporting instructions, guidelines and timelines.
- The State’s special education monitoring personnel assist school districts to accurately report compliance data by providing them technical assistance on regulatory requirements related to the compliance indicators.
Additional Information Required by OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):
|Statement from the OSEP Response Table||State’s Response|
|If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. In reporting on Indicator 20 in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must use the Indicator 20 Data Rubric.||
SED, per OSEP instruction in the 2013 Part B SPP and APR Part B Indicator Measurement Table, is not reporting data for this indicator for the initial FFY 2011 APR submission on February 15, 2013. SED will review and respond to OSEP’s calculation of New York’s data on this indicator when it is received from OSEP. Discussion of progress/slippage and improvement activities, if required, will be included after OSEP’s calculation has been reviewed.Detailed information about the actions NYS is taking to ensure compliance is included above, including a description of New York’s mechanisms for ensuring error-free, consistent, valid and reliable data and evidence that these standards are met. Please note that targets for timeliness and accuracy are 100 percent.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/ Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012 [If applicable]