Special Education in the New National Educational Data System
By Ahearn, Eileen M
For more than 5-years, the U.S. Department of Education has been developing and implementing a new data system, EDFacts, designed to contain all the educational data it collects from states. This article provides a summary of the development of the new federal system and describes some of the benefits and challenges it poses for states, districts, and schools. The addition of data from special education to the new system is also described. Keywords: federal education data system; state data collection; special education data
Background and Development of the System
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) began an extensive revision of its data system, starting with a project known as the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI) that was designed
to leverage technology to re-engineer ED’s current data collection and management activities in order to reduce the data collection burden on the states, improve the utility of information to all levels of the government and meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (Note 1)
ED performed an analysis of each state’s data-handling capacity and then began designing a new system for federal collection of state K through 12 data. The original PBDMI evolved into the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). The system continues to expand, and currently all states submit at least some of their data to ED through the EDEN Submission System. The term EDFucis was originally used for the reporting component of the new data system, but now the system as a whole is known under the single name of EDFacts, and that term is used in this article to refer to all components of the system.
State reports of special education data have been required to be submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of ED since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (1975), now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA data collection is ED’s longest standing continuous collection. From its inception in 2004, EDFacts has included special education data elements associated with child count, personnel, educational environments, exiting, discipline, and assessment data collections.
Historically, the various divisions within ED collected data from states in isolation from each other, and much of the information concerned accountability for the use of funds under grants and contracts. The shift throughout education to a focus on student outcomes has driven a major transformation in the nature of ED’s information collection from states. The main emphasis now is on ensuring that accurate data are collected and made available to guide decision making to improve academic achievement.
According to the ED Web site, the purpose of ED Facts is to
* place the use of robust, timely performance data at the core of decision and policy making in education;
* reduce the state and district data burden and streamline data practices;
* improve state data capabilities by providing resources and technical assistance; and
* provide data for planning, policy, and management at the federal, state, and local levels.
The EDFucis system is a collaborative effort of ED, state education agencies, and industry partners to centralize state- reported K through 12 educational performance data into one federally coordinated data repository located in ED (see Note 2). Data generally are submitted at the state, district, and in some instances, school levels. Each state has identified one individual to serve as the EDFacts coordinator. Although a state may have more than one individual who submits data, each state can designate only one user of the EDFacts reporting system at this time, due to software licensing restrictions. ED also provides a dedicated assistance service, known as the Partner Support Center, that maintains a phone help line and regular contact with each EDFacts coordinator through e-mail, as well as a listserv to support discussions among state education agency staff across states.
Although submission of data through the EDFacts system began as a voluntary process, a new federal regulation became effective on January 25, 2007, that requires states to submit data reports to ED “in the manner prescribed by the secretary, including submitting any of these reports electronically and at the quality level specified in the data collection instrument” (see Note 3). The regulation mandated that the new collection process begin for the 2006-2007 school year, but it did allow for a 2-year phase-in period because state data systems were at differing levels of maturity and many states were in the process of upgrading their data systems. States that needed this time were required to file a plan specifying when (2007-2008 or 2008-2009) they could comply with the new requirement.
Special Education Data and the EDFacts System
Special education data, such as the child count of students with disabilities and the number of students exiting the system, have been continuously collected since the original passage of Public Law 94-142. The data have been maintained in OSEP’s Data Analysis System (DANS), the electronic repository for all special education data mandated by IDEA to be collected from states. These data are reported to Congress annually and published as the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (see Note 4). In the summer of 2005, some states reported their 2004-2005 exiting data to both the DANS and the EOFacts systems simultaneously. OSEP developed a congruency analysis procedure to compare the data submitted through these two avenues on a cell-by-cell basis. That first round of congruency analyses resulted in 14 states being approved as EDFacW-only submitters for reporting their student exiting data; these states no longer have to submit exiting data to the DANS system.
Progress is being made in transitioning the collection of special education data to the EDEN/EDFactt system. For school years 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006, the data transition focused on three items of the required IDEA section 618 data collections (i.e., child count, educational environments, exiting). As of July 2007, ED officials reported that 34 of 52 states (this number includes the 50 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) had been designated EDFacfs-only submitters for at least one of the three collections, and 29 states are EDFacte-only submitters for all three. The transition of two additional school year 2006-2007 collections (personnel/staffing and discipline) began with the November 2007 collection period. ED also anticipates beginning to transition the special education assessment data in February 2008. The goal is to have the EOFacts system become the exclusive reporting mechanism for most of the special education section 618 data.
Other Aspects of EOFacts Implementation
Because EOFacts is the collection system for all ED data, it is also the site where data required by the No Child Left Behind Act are reported by states in their Consolidated State Performance Reports (e.g., data on student proficiency achievement, highly qualified teachers, and high school graduation rates). Many EOFacts data elements now prepopulate states’ online CSPR forms as part of the effort to eliminate duplication of reporting. EOFacts is also in the process of incorporating all the nonfiscal data elements traditionally collected by the National Center for Education Statistics in its Common Core of Data (CCD) surveys. The CCD collection for 2006-2007 was a pilot. Both EOFacts and the existing CCD team are processing the data submissions. The merger of CCD and EOFacts is expected to be complete by the end of school year 2007- 2008.
Benefits and Challenges of the New Data System
The implementation of a new mandatory educational data collection system at the federal level has profound implications for states, school districts, and schools in the collection and reporting of their data. Others, such as parents, the general public, and researchers, will also find new ways to obtain and analyze extensive quantities of educational data from a single source. Full implementation of the system involves standardization that requires changes at all levels in the way data are collected and reported. At this point in time, states are at many different levels in meeting these new requirements, as detailed in a recent publication from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (see Note 5).
Among the potential benefits of a system such as EDFacts are the following:
* provision of a catalyst for states to improve their data systems;
* availability of consistent and comparable data to allow a state to make comparisons with similar states;
* consolidation of different data collections within states and between the states and the federal government, resulting in less duplication;
* more effective use of the EOFacts reporting function by providing a single format for each report that can result in significant savings of time and paperwork for states and make the data more usable; and
* related benefits derived from participation in the extensive training opportunities provided to support the transition to the new system.Implementation of such significant changes in the collection and reporting of data also brings about challenges, such as * increased workloads and costs for states;
* revision of collection procedures at state and district levels, necessitating upgrading of hardware and software;
* changes in state data-reporting patterns-dates, procedures, and so on-to conform to the new federal requirements;
* delays due to the extra time needed to work out complications that flow from the substantial variation among states in every aspect of handling data requirements, such as revised definitions of data elements and differing collection dates for data types; and
* concerns related to the confidentiality of student data that may result from revised data-handling procedures.
Observations and Conclusions
Probably the most important ingredient needed for successful implementation of the EOFacts system is close cooperation between the federal and state departments of education. The coordination challenge in achieving a system that can provide the appropriate information needed to inform the improvement of the educational system is daunting. The federal government has provided some funding to support the needs of states in their transition to the new system. For example, grants ranging from $3 million to $6 million were awarded to a total of 13 states in 2007 and 14 states in 2005 (see Note 6). In addition, a number of national organizations have been formed to support state development of improved educational data systems at all levels (see Note 7).
It is a strong belief within the educational field that valid data are critical to improve outcomes for students in America’s public schools. The potential of EDFacts to support and improve the availability of sound data for decision making is potentially a significant contribution to reaching that goal.
Notes
1. From the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative Web site at http://sif.edreform.net/portaysif/pbdmiused. A description of EDFacis is available on the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Web site at http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ ed/EDFacts/index.html. The site provides links to information about the Education Data Exchange Network data submission system, the EOFacts data analysis and reporting tools, and other components of the program.
2. See the EDFacts Workbook SY 2006-07 at http://www.ed .gov/ about/inits/ed/EDFacis/eden/2006-07-EDFacfs-workbook-32.doc.
3. See 34 C.F.R. 76(C)(I).
4. Copies of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act annual reports to Congress are available on the Internet at http:// www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html.
5. For details on implementation of EDFacis for special education data in a selection of states, see the original document on which this article is based at http://www.projectforum.org/.
6. See the ED press releases describing these grants at http:// www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/07/07022007a.html and http:// www.ed.gOV/news/pressreleases/2005/l 1/11182005a.html.
7. See, for example, the Education Information Management Consortium at www.ccsso.org/projects/Education_Information_ Management_Advisory_Consortium; the National Forum on Education Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/forum; the Schools Interoperability Framework Association at www.sifinfo.org; and the Data Quality Campaign at www.dataqualitycampaign.org.
Eileen M. Ahearn is a project director and senior policy analyst at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. She conducts research and analyses of special education topics and is a nationally recognized expert on issues related to special education in charter schools.
Copyright PRO-ED Journals Aug 2008
(c) 2008 Communication Disorders Quarterly. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.