SEARCH
 
Fall Data Conference, October 27-28, 2011

Agenda

Date: October 27-28, 2011

Time: 8:30 a.m. - 4 p.m.

Location: Utah State Library

250 North 1950 West in Multipurpose Room, Salt Lake City, Utah

  • Wi-Fi will be available

The purpose of this meeting is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the Utah State Office of Education (USOE), districts and charter schools to further the efficient, accurate and timely exchange of school performance data. This agenda and all the information presented during data meetings will be available on the USOE Information Technology website.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

8 a.m.

Continental Breakfast - Networking

8:30 a.m.

October 1 UTREx Clarifications and Recap - Clint Thomsen, Kristin Campbell

1. UTREx Recap

  • a. Inclusion criteria for Oct. 1
    • i. Grade 00-12
    • ii. Enrolled in school on Oct. 1
    • iii. School of record value is blank
    • iv. Resident Status value of ‘U’, ‘C’, or ‘B’
  • b. clarification of support/troubleshooting process

2. Documentation – Old vs. New
See: http://schools.utah.gov/computerservices/Services/Data-Clearinghouse.aspx

  • a. Workbook version of spec is “Bible.”
    Suggestions from LEAs
    • Make it more "printable"
    • Make it more "searchable"
    • Put it on a website

  • b. Use old document for reference only
    Question: Why did the USOE not choose to continue to use the old documentation?
    Answer: The majority prefer the spreadsheets, which are more maintainable and structured to the old narrative type document.

  • c. Plans to incorporate useful info from old document into new, then phase out the old document completely
    Suggestions from LEAs:
    • Create a dictionary of warnings and errors.
    • Remove the old FoxPro edit document
  • d. Training materials to be posted

3. ODS/Clearinghouse Level II Validations
See UTREx – Fall Data

  • a. Clarification on what each type of exception means, common fixes, best practices
  • b. Discuss plans for each exception type (when each type will return to fatal)
  • c. Discuss process for resolving Level 2 exceptions where conflicting data is historical

    Clarification: Level two errors will not be reintroduced until USOE is reasonably sure they will not cause major burdens on LEAs.

    Proposal: For 2012-13 submissions and beyond the Level II rules will not consider data prior to 2011-12.

    Question: How do you know when you are done submitting October 1 data?
    Answer: When the counts the LEAs are satisfied that the counts in the UTREx reports agree with the local counts. This is the responsibility of LEAs. UTREx will continue to improve extract/auditing features to research data issues at the student level as well as information about and notification of staff at the school level who need to involved in resolution of SSID and dual school-of-record errors. Central LEA offices need to know the individuals at the "other" school who can help resolve Level II errors.

    Question: How do you report a student that alternates between two schools or LEAs every other day?
    Answer: One of the schools must be declared the school-of-record.

    Question: At year end, can a special education student be submitted with a certificate-of-completion code (CT) and then be submitted with S1 (demographic) and S2 (special education) records the following school year?
    Answer: No. This is an error. The student should have been submitted with a retained senior code (RT) at the end of the prior school year.

    Suggestions:
    • Allow ES records to be submitted after October 15.

    • Include more data fields in Level II and other extracts to help LEAs sort and separate records so they can distribute subsets of the data to the correct persons at the school Level. Additional fields in Excel extracts and in PDFs should also include:
    • School's ID/number in separate column for sorting
    • Student's LEA number
    • Student's grade-level,
    • In general UTREx needs to contain more information about who to contact at the school level to resolve issues. Possibly use contact tables from CACTUS to accomplish this.

    • Provide the option of extracting files at more sub-steps of the UTREx submission and validation process. These files need to contain more information about derived/computed data fields.

    • When a new student registers at a school ask where they came from and if they have ever attended a school within the state.

    Clarification: A student may have both S1 and ES records submitted at the same time.

4. VRF – Level I Validations

Many issues with UTREx validations suggest problems with the data or use/maintenance thereof at the LEA and in SISs.

For Example:

  • a. No values other than space/blank are allowed in the S2/SCRAM TIME field for pre-K students. Any value but a blank/space should trigger an error in the future. It is just a warning for October reporting in 2011. It is suggested that all SIS allow the designation of a Disability Code and Environment Code for a pre-k student without having to designate Time. Otherwise the SIS’s Clearinghouse extract program will have to insert a space for the Time field for pre-k students.
  • b. Pre-K students who are six on or before September 1 of the current school year will be errors in the future. It is just a warning for October reporting in 2011.
  • c. Pre-K special education students who are developmentally disabled (Disability Type=DD) who are eight before December 2 of the current school year will be errors in the future. This validation is only active after December 1. However, it was just a warning for October reporting in 2011.
  • d. An error will result if a student’s grade level is outside of the grade range for the school, as defined in CACTUS, under which the student is submitted.
  • e. AC records with no membership generate a fatal error.
  • f. UTREx had to write temporary business rules/logic for S2 to populate blank exit dates with a date matching the existing S1 exit date, and then populating the exit reason field with an "x" (Exited Services). However, this caused some issues. A valid SCRAM Exit Reason must be entered if a SCRAM Exit Date is entered. If SCRAM Exit Reason is D (aged out), High School Compl Status must be AO (reached maximum age).

    Question: Will these temporary rules for October 2011 be made permanent?
    Answer: No. LEAs' SISs need to ensure the extracted data follow the existing rules. If there is an S1 exit date and reason then the S2 and S3 records must include appropriate exit dates and reasons.

    General Suggestions:
    • Insert page breaks when school number changes on printed Level I reports.

    • Provide better clarity on the use of MoveIT. Deactivate MoveIT for all unless LEA would like to automate submissions.

    • Report number of records by type passed from Level I to Level II

    • More page breaks and numbering

    • Provide a button on the submission log that will allow any LEA to download their submission in Excel.

    • Do not format Excel extracts like a report (e.g. Exception Report). Simply one line per individual.

    • Provide LEAs with better phone support. Give out number(s) other than the central USOE operator number (801) 538-7500

    • Respond to e-mail with at least an acknowledgement if not an answer. Consider an incident/request management system like SIS uses.

    • Maintain one UTREx distribution list and keep it more current.

    • Include LEA names not just number on error report/file. Hover-over feature is not adequate.

    • Use built-in capabilities of UTREx software to tie together:
    • System status page
    • News page
    • ODS information
    • VRF information
    • Contact lists
    • On some of the pages browser back arrow does not function. Following breadcrumbs is not convenient. There are frequently too many pages to "click-through".

    Some LEA mentioned an inconsistency of S2/special education and/or S3/YIC counts between reports (???)

    USOE needs to communicate which browser and version, on which Mac OS, is fully supported. Chrome seems to work and Firefox supposedly does but rapid releases have caused versioning problems.

    Schedule a SLF/SSID SIF technical meeting within the Month of November

10:15 a.m.

UTREx Next Phases with roll-out schedules - John Brandt, Clint Thomsen and others

  • Automated/SIF SSID roll-out - screens and functionality will be explained and demonstrated
    The target for pilot completion (pending SIS readiness) and a production roll-out is January 2012.

    High Level System Overview (SSID Extension only)

    See 2011 SSID Extension Website Demo

    Clarification: Some LEAs, such as those with many migrant students, may not be immediately able to get all the information needed to register a new student and are hesitant to have the SSID automatically assigned. However, the SLF can be configured not to automatically assign new SSIDs for the LEA. All must be done manually.

    Suggestion:
    The default for assigning new SSIDs should be manual to encourage LEAs to think more before they just generate a new number. That way we avoid automated creation of duplicates. For example: There are age range validations in UTREx for YIC facilities restricting retrieval of an SSID number when a student is outside the age range. Some LEAs have said they would "resolve" this issue by simply creating a new SSID number for that student because they are unable to retrieve the existing SSID number easily.
  • 1. Simplified Request Process flow overview
  • 2. Email demonstrations
    • a. Summary email error sample
    • b. Single email error sample
    • c. Email configuration on SSID Website (new flag)
  • 3. Updated SSID User Manual
    • a. Review new section 6 in manual
    • b. Display new SSID Website Screens
    • c. SIF Transactions
      • i. SIF Transactions Multiple Match (Action Required link)
        • 1. Retrieve Student Link
        • 2. Create New SSID for student Link
        • 3. Cancel Transaction Link
        • 4. SSID Link to view all Student SSID detail
      • ii. SIF Transaction Errors (View Errors link)
      • iii. SIF Transaction Detail (Detail Link
  • E-transcripts roll-out – Spring 2012
  • E-records exchange roll-out – Contingent on SIF installations
  • Flat file replacement by SIF

The USOE is soliciting input concerning these next phases. We have insufficient time to address all the details in the October 27th agenda. Anyone who has an interest may attend a workshop on Friday afternoon. Be prepared for some technical discussions.

11:15 a.m.

Online Course Reporting for SPEOP/SB65 - Cory Kanth, Emily Tew, John Brandt

LEAs need decisions about what data to report for students that enroll in the State Public Education Online Program (SPEOP) and for students that enroll in online courses in general. Not all online courses are part of SPEOP. There are at least six other ways to provide online courses.

  • A. Should the primary/school-of-record LEA report course records (Clearinghouse AC/AM records) for classes the students take with a SPEOP provider? On the other hand, can they just record the grade and credits in their SIS system (transcript part) as transfer credits?

    Yes. For all SPEOP students, the primary/school-of-record must get the teacher CACTUS IDs
    (Allowing the primary school to use a generic provider CACTUS ID is being considered), course- section-period numbers (These do not have to be the actual course-section-period of the provider. The primary/school-of-record can “fill-in” their own course-section-period values), core codes, grades and credits, and report the where taught district and school for these courses via the Clearinghouse AC/AM records. The where-taught district and where-taugh-school values must indicate the appropriate SPEOP provider.

    No. Transfer credits are for recording course taken outside of Utah Public Education such as those taken in other states or from a private school and be accredited
    .

    Suggestions:
    • For students attending classes outside the school of record; the LEAs backed the proposal to have the provider report where-from/school-of-record data in the course records (AC/AM) and the school-of-record not report any or minimal course data.

    • The provider would have to report at least some S1 data, and the school-of-record would still have record transcript data as well some course data. This could include reporting the students in a generic class with possible where-taught data.

    • UTREx would also provide the school-of-record to find their students who took courses with a provider.

    • In addition, such a reporting model will require some additional instructional providers such as ATCs to begin reporting UTREx Clearinghouse files.

  • B. Should the primary/school-of-record LEA include time spent in SPEOP in days of enrollment/membership reported to the USOE via the USOE Clearinghouse? This is appropriate because LEAs will still need the funding in the subsequent school year, since the primary LEA “transfers” funds to the SPEOP provider for at least some of the student’s courses.

    YES

  • C. What about a SPEOP course that spans multiple years? Will we need to adjust rules in AYP for students who take more than one grade or level and CRT in one year?

    No. Current AYP rules handle multiple years
    .
     
  • D. A student full-academic-year (FAY) for a provider and accountable for the student's performance, if the student took. any SPEOP course worth 1.0 credit or more. In addition, if a student takes .5 (semester) of a course via SPEOP and .5 of the same course in a traditional classroom, then the student should be treated the same as if the student took the entire course in SPEOP. In other words, if the student takes any part of a course via SPEOP the SPEOP provider is AYP accountable for that student’s course.

    This will require the introduction of a new variation of assignment of accountability in NCLB and U-PASS or Grading Schools
    .
     
  • E. The Davis, Granite, Jordan, Park City and Nebo online course consortium needs to know how to account for students taking courses within their consortium. Should they report like a school-of-record does for a SB65/SPEOP provider school?

    YES. They should follow the same rules as the SPEOP schools, and report full membership in the students’ S1 as well as AC/AM records. This is no different from the way courses taken outside the primary/school-of-record should have been reported for years. Some LEAs say it is difficult because of the enrollment S1 requirements but one would think they do need to enrollment in their SIS
    .
     
  • F. For SPEOP courses, does the provider need to report any data about the student’s primary/school-of-record?

    Yes. SPEOP providers must report students’ S1/AC/AM Clearinghouse records because. In addition, they need to produce pre-print files and be accountable for any CRTs required for the online courses. The assumption is that all such proctoring of CRTs by the provider will be wholly online. The proctor or teacher distributing results (if necessary) could be the teacher of record, a proctor or some other teacher.

    As part of the SPEOP process both primary school and provider school must complete their respective sections of a Course Credit Acknowledgement (CCA) document for each student, although this document does not contain course data at the same level of detail as the Clearinghouse.
    Note: Since SPEOP providers are to be accountable for students with less than a full academic year (>= 160 days membership) the Utah federal AYP workbook needs to be amended
    .
     
  • G. For non-SPEOP courses, does the provider need to report any data about the student enrolled from a primary/school-of-record?

    Yes. In the case of a non-SPEOP online or classroom courses, the provider should also report full course data (AC/AM Clearinghouse records) for all students including those attending from another primary/school-of-record. For classroom courses, this is especially necessary for class size calculations. Note, non-SPEOP providers are accountable neither for the student’s performance, nor for the administration of state assessments
    .

Outcomes – Actions

For SPEOP courses use “OP” for instructional setting code. USOE may want to consider introducing school-of-record district and school-of-record school (a “reverse” where taught district and school) fields. These new fields in the AM record would help link the student’s course enrollments in the provider school back to the school-of-record.

Question: Are students that are enrolled in a school in your LEA but also taking a class in the district on-line school considered part of SB65?
Answer: No. They are excluded.

Question: If there are any SB65 students should LEAs mark the course master (AC) record Instruction Setting code as "OP" for online public.
Answer: Yes, but this creates a problem since a class may be mixed (SB65 and non-SB65) but the Instructional Setting field is in the Course Master (AC) record. This data model may require the use of two grade books to designate under which program the student took the course/subject.

 

How are October 1 Data Used at USOE - Kristin Campbell
See: Funding

  • Head Count
  • Ethnicity and Race Counts
  • Special Ed Counts
  • Low Income Counts
  • District of Residence
  • English Language Learner Counts
  • NAEP Counts

Noon

Lunch/Networking – You are on your own 

1:15 p.m.

Pre-K and > 180 Days Reporting Issues - Jerry Winkler, Emily Eyre

Some extended year special education pre-K schools may run for 15-30 days during July and part of August. After these pre-K summer sessions, students may be “transferred” to the regular year school for 180 days. This practice currently causes errors in the Clearinghouse with ADM/ADA totals being more than the current 180 days equivalent rules.

For pre-K students, LEAs may not report summer school, special education, days of membership provided via extended school year programs in addition to regular-school-year days of membership.

This is consistent with the way the USOE treats all other summer school data in the warehouse (YIC, Title I, Neglected and Delinquent, Agriculture Education, K-12 Special Education, English as a Second Language, etc.).

However, a revised/new board rule/policy decision may need to be made for summer schools. YIC summer school is not part of the MSP (Minimum School Program) so they should not be reported. Even pre-k, summer, special education courses should not be reported if they are not MSP funded. Even if they are MSP funded they are just funded by December 1 head counts.

Suggestion: Ask for a revised and better definition of summer school.

In the interim, we have relaxed/deactivated the strict UTREx-Clearinghouse errors to warnings when the total days membership is greater than 170 + (10 * number-of-enrollments). Since there were still problems with LEAs reporting an entire year’s worth of membership the warning was further modified to: Total 180 equivalent regular (S1) + special education (S2 self-contained) membership days must be <= 360 + (10 * number of school enrollments).

Note: The S1, S2, S3 records are currently designed to identify “instructional and/or related service”, not simply eligibility for such service. With the introduction of the Youth in Custody S3 Record, LEAs are now required to choose which program is providing service for C = Self Contained students. This aligns with the philosophy that we are funding “instructional and/or related service”. This eliminates “double-dipping” and the notion that two distinct programs can offer 180 minutes or more instructional/related service simultaneously. In the interim the short answer for LEAs with this conundrum is for them to submit an S2 record for dually eligible (SPED and YIC) students since there is funding and a laundry list of federal mandates tied to this student population.

Some of the current UTREx rules are:

  • Total days enrolled <= 170 days + (10 days * (# of schools attended))

    Clarification: Rule will be enforced.

    Suggestion: If total membership for student in a year (after adjusted for parttime and 180) is over allowable number, prorate based on proportion claimed by each LEA.

  • S1 + S2 (self-contained) <= 180 (simplified without 10 day rule)
  • S1 + S3 (self-contained) <= 180

    Question: Why do we need this rule if YIC is not funded by the State Minimum School Program (MSP)?
    Answer: Because YIC is funded by the MSP.

  • S2 and S2 resource is assumed contained in S1
  • S1 + S2 (self-contained + S3 (self-contained) can be > 180

1:30 p.m.

 

CRT Pre-Load File Standard Usage of the 9.2 Field - Emily Tew

Beginning in the 2011-2012 school year the USOE recommends (but does not mandate) assessment’s pre-print/pre-load files’ 9 character part of the 9.2 ID field be a teacher’s of record CACTUS ID. In the future this CACTUS ID will be validated against the CACTUS database to verify it is for a current teacher in the school indicated in the record. In addition, this CACTUS ID may also be validated against the school’s class rosters to see if the teacher with that CACTUS ID is the teacher of record for the student being tested and that the test was required for the subject/course being taught.

The 2-character part of this legacy field can be used as the LEA sees fit. In most cases it will be a two character period number or a one character term number followed by a one character period number. This splitting of the two-character field has been suggested as a way to separate multiple classes being taught by the same teacher during the same period but in different terms. It has proven to be beneficial in reporting, particularly in the state sponsored Data Display (Cognos) system.

Race/Ethnicity Codes Reminder

USOE has permanently suspended the race/ethnicity data element in all pre-print/pre-load and all-student files. For all pre-print/pre-load files and all-student files being received by the USOE, the USOE software will write a “U” into this field in all records. If a student’s race/ethnicity is needed for any reason, the USOE will use the current the race/ethnicity recorded for the student in the USOE warehouse.

Note: USOE IT has updated information for current users for both the assessment Website and the secure MOVE-It app, so if LEAs aren’t sure if they have a logon contact Sharon Marsh, Keith Garcia, or Shane Johnson.

Comment: Teacher-of-Record (TOR) is a controversial topic nationally. There is disagreement about how to define TOR and how to identify TORs once such a definition is agree on. Less the half of the states have an operational definition and they vary. Some are very general and call for a lot of judgment on the part of a principal etc. Others are very detailed and depend mostly on data. The New York City School District is attempting to measure/record every minute or unit/dosage of instructional interaction between each teacher and each student. Most states seem to be adopting the strategy of proving the definitions and rules to the LEAs and have them identify TORs. However, in most if not all cases this is being done on a class by class and not student by student basis.

1:45 p.m.

Reporting of ELL Students – Rita Brock
See: ELL Override Procedure 2011

There are changes to the procedures and timing for reporting students exiting the ELL program. LEAs will no longer have to submit an override file after the end-of-year to clean-up the statuses of some ELL students. However, LEAs must change the statuses of exiting students in their SISs after they submit end-of-year data to the USOE via the Clearinghouse.

Questions from LEAs AND Answers from Kurt Farnsworth (covered by Jerry Winkler)

We are having some questions arise about UALPA now that our ELL Dept. is entering last spring's test data.

If we have a student who was exited (marked "F") from ELL on 6/30/2010, should they have even been tested last spring (2011)?

No, once a student is exited from ESL programs (With an “F” - old UALPA proficiency level or with a “5” on the new UALPA proficiency level) they DO NOT need to be tested.

If they were tested and come back with a "3", how do we handle that?

If a student regresses she/he needs to be given a screener and if s/he is identified as ESL the LEA needs to re-enter him/her into the ESL program and test them annually with the UALPA until she reaches level “5”.

Also, we have students, who have apparently regressed ... they were an "A" before and now are showing as being an "E", for example.

This is possible. The test requirements to receive a level 5, Fluent determination become more difficult as the student gets older. If the student has not reached level 5, they should continue to receive services.

2 p.m.

Long-Term Suspension Code - Brent Page

Should there be a Long-term Suspension code added to the S1 Exit Codes? The suspension code was recently removed from Exit Codes because suspension now appears in the Discipline Incident data along with Expelled. The thinking was that a suspension is not really an exit

R277-19-4A stipulates that LEAs continue to provide services to students on longer-term suspensions. Therefore, students on long-term suspensions (traditionally suspended more than 10 days) need not be un-enrolled and re-enrolled, making then no different from any other suspended student.

Suggestions:
• Add a validation for the Number of Days field in the Incident Association Record (I2). This validation will require a non-zero value if the Discipline Method field is not space/blank.

• For federal reporting the period must be one full day or more. Half days are counted as full days.

• Determine what UTREx can do to validate the incident data in an effort to improve its quality. This may include not allowing number of days of suspension that have the student not returning until the following school year. We feel this should be an expulsion.

2:15 p.m.

Dual Immersion and New Course Code – Randy Raphael
See: Dual Immersion - Dual Immersion - USOE Fall 2011 Data Conference Handout

The requirements for teachers working in a Dual Immersion program have been changed. These changes go into effect during the 2011-2012 school-year. This information is to clarify USOE’s expectations regarding data reporting for schools and students participating in a USOE-approved Dual Immersion program as these new requirements are phased in. These guidelines are only appropriate for USOE-approved Dual Immersion programs and are not applicable to other situations.

USOE asks that all IT personnel help in getting LEA staff to use Dual Immersion codes rather than just standard grade/course codes where appropriate. This includes reporting teachers’ assignments in CACTUS as well as course codes in class records (AC) in UTREx-Clearinghouse. THESE DATA NEED TO BE COMPELTE AND GOOD FOR DEC 1 SUBMISSIONS. Only 57 schools have dual immersion courses.

Any newer codes such as these must go into local SIS tables.

Randy will also UEPC and reports for the January Legislature

Dual Immersion CACTUS Data Reporting:

1. 2010-2011 School Year

  • a. The primary English teacher should be entered in CACTUS with the grade-appropriate assignment (i.e. Grade 2).
  • b. The primary foreign language teacher may be entered in one of two ways:
    • i. If the teacher has an Elementary (1-8 or K-6) license area of concentration, or is earning one through ARL, he may be entered in CACTUS with the grade-appropriate assignment.
    • ii. If the teacher does not have an Elementary license area of concentration and is working through ARL to meet the new requirements for Dual Immersion foreign language teachers, he may be entered in CACTUS as a School Specialist for the 2010-2011 school-year only.

2. 2011-2012 School Year

  • a. The primary English teacher should be entered in CACTUS with the grade-appropriate, dual-immersion assignment (i.e. Grade 2 – Dual Immersion – French). This is a student and educator CACTUS Assignment code
  • b. The primary foreign language teacher should be entered in CACTUS with the grade-appropriate, dual-immersion language teacher assignment (i.e. Grade 2 – Dual Immersion – French – Language Teacher). This is an educator only CACTUS Assignment code.

Clearinghouse (Student) Data Reporting:

1. 2010-2011 School Year

Students should be reported under the grade-appropriate core code (i.e. Grade 2). Both of the “paired” classes should be reported as separate classes, but both classes should be reported with the primary English language teacher as the teacher of record (column TEACHER 1 under Course Master). The primary foreign language teacher should be entered as the second teacher for each of these classes (column TEACHER 2 ID under Course Master)

2. 2011-2012 School Year

Students should be reported under the grade-appropriate, dual-immersion core code (i.e. Grade 2 – Dual Immersion - French). The “paired” classes of students should be reported as separate classes, but both classes should be reported with the primary English language teacher as the teacher of record (column Teacher 1 under Course Master). The primary foreign language teacher should be entered as the second teacher for each of these classes (column Teacher 2 ID under Course Master).

If you have questions regarding these guidelines or the new requirements for Dual Immersion teachers, please contact gregg [dot] roberts [at] schools [dot] utah [dot] gov (Gregg Roberts) at (801) 538-7743, or travis [dot] rawlings [at] schools [dot] utah [dot] gov (Travis Rawlings) at (801) 538-7601.

Suggestion:
Ideally, both Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 each have separate logons to their LEA's SIS and the shared class's gradebook. However, since Teacher 2 have not have their own logon to the LEA's SIS system to take attendance for a class they teach in the first half of the day, Teacher 1, the English teacher may need to share their logon and password. However, ultimately it is up to the LEA how to handle attendance and gradebooks for dual immersion classes as long as they can meet USOE reporting requirements.

2:30 p.m.

Irregular Pre-K Reporting - Connie Nink

Another issue is the irregular reporting of pre-K students. In the future the Clearinghouse may want to give a warning or error for pre-K students that are not special education. Some LEAs and schools report non-special education pre-K students.

LEAs must report special education pre-K students, but there is increasing interest in reporting all pre-K students. However, this is not currently required. Some LEAs are recording all pre-k students in their SISs in order to meet the needs of their local program personnel.

The USOE needs to consider EdFacts reporting to determine ramifications of allowing such practice to continue. There is concern that Utah’s number of non-special education pre-k counts may be misinterpreted.

Pre-k student are identified in the Clearinghouse SCRAM (S2) record via the Environment field

Environment: (Col 038 ; Required – ALL updates)

If grade is PRE-K, use one of the following settings:

C = Early Childhood Special Education (50% or more of students in class are receiving special education services) (federal “Special Class”)

F = Child attending a regular childhood program at least 10 hours per week and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in the regular Early Childhood Program

G = Child attending a regular childhood program at least 10 hours per week and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in some other location

J = Child attending a regular childhood program less than 10 hours per week and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in the regular Early Childhood Program

K = Child attending a regular childhood program less than 10 hours per week and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in some other location

R = Public Residential

S = Public Separate School

I = Itinerant (federal “Service Provider Location”)

M = Home

For reporting a pre-K student in an AC/AM record structure there are two basic course code:

23-03-00-00-020 Preschool Special Education
22-04-00-00-001 Early Childhood (Pre-K)

Currently schools can report pre-k students, special education or not, with either course code.

The feds only require that LEAs only report special education pre-K students. However, there appears to be a desire to have all LEAs sponsored pre-K student reported.

See SCRAM: Decision Tree

In addition: Some LEAs report their Special Education people are still reporting Time for pre-k special education students. This is violating UTREx edits. In the old clearinghouse we just ignored these but in UTREx we do not even want to see an A, B or C if they are not applicable. Pre-k special education time is indicated by the SCRAM Enviroment field codes.

2:45 p.m.

Adult Education and Special Education K12 - Travis Cook

In school year 2010-11, Washington SD enrolled and reported special education, resource students at Southwest High School (school number 850). These students are part of the Adult Education program at Southwest High.

  • Should Washington report these students? 
  • Should Washington only receive credit for the S2 membership? 
  • Can Washington report zero membership in a student’s S1 record but report non-zero membership in the S2?

A student must be in one or the other, Adult Ed or still in “regular” high school (reported in Clearinghouse) but never both. To be in adult education they must have an out-of-school waiver if 18 or under. Students are first eligible at 16.

Students receiving special education services (S2) must be reported, treated, and served as “regular” students. They must be reported via S1 & S2 records in the Clearinghouse.

If an Adult Education (AE) program (remediation, credit recovery, daily coursework, etc.) serves “regular” public education K-12 students (reported via S1 record) as part of the LEAs instructional service continuum; then these students are NOT eligible for Adult Education funding.

There is no need to change any rules and/or policies. LEAs need to make a clear distinction between public education K-12 students and Adult Education students. For auditing purposes, only a school-age student that has a signed waiver from K-12 public education will be considered an Adult Education student.

3 p.m.

Tribal Affiliation Clarification - Emily Tew

All students who check-off being American Indian/Alaskan Native students designate a tribal affiliation, but if they do not know what to choose or decline to choose from the 5 acceptable codes, then “O” for “Other tribe” must be recorded by the school.

New Instructional Setting Code - Emily Tew

Add “HH” for homebound/hospitalized. Currently, LEAs are incorrectly reporting these students under a homebound/hospitalized “school”; but when we get rid of those faux-schools, there is still a need to report the way these students are receiving instruction.

We are going to remove the homebound/hospitalized schools (3 exist now) from CACTUS so now LEAs with these schools just need to keep them enrolled in their regular courses and use a homebound/hospitalized flag on the AC record. For 2012-13 report these student as enrolled in accredited schools with AC/AM records with HH

Question: How long can an LEA enroll a student as HH? Can it be for the entire year?
Answer: Yes, unless there is a board rule stating otherwise.

Question: Why not add an HH field to the S1 record?
Answer: It is much less disruptive for all concerned to add a code rather than a field.

Concurrent Enrollment Coding – Jerry Winkler for Moya Kessig

LEAs need to use the concurrent enrollment CACTUS/Course codes ("13" in the 7th and 8th digits) in order to receive CE funding. Everyone agreed that LEAs could be in compliance by the fall of 2012.

If LEA's want to receive the CE allocation, those classes have to be coded correctly. In the past LEA's have not used the concurrent code or have used the AP code instead. In the future (2012) this practice will not be accepted. Moya has spoken with the CE coordinators about this issue and they asked that USOE let IT staffs know of the change.

Recommendation: If AP students and concurrent enrollment students are in the same class, the school should run two gradebooks, one for the AP students and one for the concurrent students. That way the desired course will appear on the transcript (e.g. scholarship programs want to see concurrent courses). However, see following clarification note.

Clarification: LEAs must be sure to use the Concurr Enrolled field (below) in the individual student's Course Membership (AM) record correctly.

Concurr Enrolled: (Col 062 ; Optional) Indicates whether or not the student is taking this class (deemed to be a concurrent enrollment class in the AC record) as a concurrent enrollment class for college credit or taking the class for just high school credit.

Value

Meaning

Y

Taking for college credit and high school credit

N

Taking for just high school credit

Blank

Class is not a concurrent enrollment class

If the AC record this AM references has "13" in positions 7 and 8 of the Core Code

Direct Certification for CNP - Brian Gardner
CNP has had a lot of success matching DWS data and SSID numbers for direct certification of schools meals. Everyone—SSID staff and SIS staff have been extremely helpful. Present the recent changes in our processes and to discuss security issues. CNP will consider requesting a board rule that free and reduced eligible students be identified within a prescribed time following enrollment.

Question: Is there any reason why students' school lunches have to be designated in UTREx as anything other than "F" (Eligible for Free Lunch)? Why is there also "R" (Eligible for Reduced Price Lunch) and "Y" (Economically Disadvantaged)?
Answer: Federal reporting requires more detail.

3:30 p.m.

Reading on Grade Level Fields and Related Fields for 2011-12 - UTREx Clearinghouse - Kurt Farnsworth

We currently collect mid-year Read Grade Level and Reading Intervention at the end of the school year.

For SY 2011-12 the UTREx Clearinghouse will continue to collect mid-year Read Grade Level and Reading Intervention. A student may receive Reading Intervention at any time throughout the school year and an LEA may report Reading Intervention at any time throughout the school year.

In addition (optional for 2011-12 whenever available but mandatory for 2012-13) UTREx will collect:

  • Fall Read Grade Level
  • Spring Read Grade Level

Clarification: The USOE Assessment Section has recommended a March 1 data collection so these mid-year student reading levels and interventions are available in a timelier manner.

4 p.m.

Common issues found during IDEA EDFacts reporting; Trying to clarify the miscommunications” – Brent Page

See: 2011 Fall data conference-incidents

EDFacts file specifications: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/file-specifications.html 

 

Friday, October 28, 2011 

8 a.m.

Continental Breakfast – Networking

8:30 a.m.

UTREx processing and rules workshop (TBA) – John Brandt, Clint Thomsen, Kristin Campbell

Course Taking Reporting – John Brandt

It seems the camps are divided on the issue of who reports AC/AM data for a student, the primary/school-of-record or the school actually providing the course. Fortunately, this issue is not going to affect the October 1 reports since those are only enrollment counts, but we need to come to some conclusion sooner rather than later.

My best suggestion at the current time is that the school-of-record continues to report the student that goes elsewhere via the where-taught fields and other information. However, I see no need to report the provider’s actual course-section-period for the class. Still this means you need to schedule a bunch of small classes even if you do not need to get those fields from the provider. Teacher’s CACTUS ID is still required. Many LEAs do not think this is a big deal, but then they may have to follow this procedure anyway to get the grades for these “outside” classes into their report card. SB65/SPEOP providers will still have to report AC/AMs for these students.

In sum, this is still not firmly decided. I am toying with the idea of saying the provider, the school-of-record, or both can report, but then that risks having neither do so. All of this really comes down to differences in local practice. Some providers do not want to report these “guest” students because that would mean having to enroll them to be able to generate an S1, but I offered the possibility of an abbreviated S1 for such students. Some schools-of-records say the must report ATE courses via the where-taught fields and some say they need to add these AC/AMs for report cards.

LEAs are saying they are having a rough time getting some students scheduled into their SISs. These students are generally of two types.

1. The school-of-record’s student taking an online or other course from a provider

2. A student taking a course for whom your school is acting as a provider

Here is what I suggest:

1. By the end-of-year 2011-12 both the school-of-record and provider will each need to report these students with S1, AC, and AM records.

For the school-of-record:

  • a. Allow any course number and period values the school-of-record can manage. This applies to the accompanying course master (AC) record also.
  • b. Grade, credits attempted and credits earned must be reported
  • c. A generic CACTUS ID MAY be allowed, but currently the school-of-record is to report the actual teacher’s ID.
  • d. A where-taught-school and where-taught-LEA (if different from the school-of-record’s LEA) must be provided
  • e. Other AM/AC fields/data elements are optional

For the providing school:

  • a. Complete S1, AC, AM records in full for all students enrolled in courses from the provider
  • b. The value of the S1 School-of-record field must be “N”
  • c. Considering relaxing all but a few critical S1 field
  • d. Consider introducing a LEA-of-record and School-of-record fields in the AM record to be completed by the providing school

2. For at least through October 17 of 2011:

For the school-of-record:

  • a. Must have an S1 record and at least one AM record for each student
  • b. Provider courses may recorded as transfer credit

For the providing school:

  • a. Must have an S1 record and at least one AM record for each student.
  • b. Complete S1, AC, AM records in full for all students enrolled in courses from the provider
  • c. The value of the S1 School-of-record field must be “N”

10 a.m.

Maximum Number of Days Enrolled and UTREx – Kristin Campbell

With UTREx we will be able to check days of membership across LEAs. Thus, we have to resolve potential issues around student enrollment counts for students that will have over 180 days at the end of the year. Transfers, sometimes multiple ones and sometimes year-round schools can send the total days of enrollment over the allowed amount.

Some of the current UTREx rules are:

  • Total days enrolled <= 170 days + (10 days * (# of schools attended))
  • S1 + S2 (self-contained) <= 180 (simplified without 10 day rule)
  • S1 + S3 (self-contained) <= 180
  • S2 and S2 resource is assumed contained in S1
  • S1 + S2 (self-contained + S3 (self-contained) can be > 180.

In rare cases the USOE recognized this rule could force some schools to under report of days of enrollment for some students.

For example:

  • School A may have a student enrolled in a year-round schedule from July into September without the student goes off track for 40 days. 
  • Then the student transfers to school B on a regular schedule for 160 days from September to May
  • Finally the student transfers to year-round school C for the month of June and accumulate another 20 days.
  • Assuming each school is on a 180 day schedule, then this student was actually in school for 220 (50 + 160 + 20) days. 
  • However, the current rule will only allow for 200 days (170 + (10 * 3)). The current UTREx process requires that these hours be reconciled by the schools, some of which may be in different LEAs. 
  • There are two problems here, reconciliation may not be practical at the end of the year; and, given the example, may not be appropriate.

Note: Each school must report the total days of enrollment for each student only after the school has calculated those days as 180-equivalent-days according to the direction in the Clearinghouse specification.

Note: When reporting days of enrollment for part-time students the school must first prorate those days according to the directions in State School Board Rule R277-419-4 says:

C. Calculations

  • 1. If a student was enrolled for only part of the school day or only part of the school year, the student's membership shall be prorated according to the number of hours, periods or credits for which the student actually was enrolled in relation to the number of hours, periods or credits for which a full-time student normally would have been enrolled. For example:
    • (a) If the student was enrolled for 4 periods each day in a 7 period school day for all 180 school days, the student's aggregate membership would be 4/7 of 180 days or 103 days.
    • (b) If the student was enrolled for 7 periods each day in a 7 period school day for 103 school days, the student's membership would also be 103 days. This works for secondary, but not for elementary (generally elementary has no periods)
  • 2. For students in grades 2 through 12, days in membership shall be calculated by the LEA using a method equivalent to the following: total clock hours of instruction for which the student was enrolled during the school year divided by 990 hours and then multiplied by 180 days and finally rounded up to the nearest whole day. For example, if a student was enrolled for only 900 hours during the school year, the student's aggregate membership would be (900/990)*180, and the LEA would report 164 days. Note: This is a more generally (across all grade levels) applicable rule, Davis does it by % of hours
  • 3. For students in grade 1, the first term of the formula shall be adjusted to use 810 hours as the denominator.
  • 4. For students in kindergarten, the first term of the formula shall be adjusted to use 450 hours as the denominator.

Suggestions and Clarifications:
• Consult with the USOE School Finance section. Due to rapidly changing instruction models, school choice and multiple enrollments across not just schools but LEAs, school finance laws and rules may need to be significantly modified.

• If end-of-year/June 30 membership for schools-of-record and non-schools-of-record are used for funding in the new school year; then how does one justify only using a year-over-year growth factor based on October 1 student/head counts for only schools-of-record in October to make final adjustments to monthly allotments? It would seem that student head/counts from all schools should be considered.

• USOE needs to review the use of the school-of-record construct in the UTREx Clearinghouse data submissions.

10:30 a.m.

Dually Enrolled Student Data Issues – John Brandt, Judy Gibbons

With the ability of UTREX to identify dual enrollments between various educational entities, it is imperative (especially with online schools) that we have a method or way of identifying students who are dually enrolled ASAP after the enrollment occurs (not at the time of reporting).

  • 1. The reporting of transfers between charter schools and our district has not occurred between physical charter schools nor online charter schools. In most of the cases I have investigated, no contact has been made other than an occasional request for records. School secretaries refuse to send records to online schools since the students are still enrolled in our schools. Our thought is that ANY LEA or charter school offering online courses needs to contact the student's District of Residence/school-of-record upon enrollment. If there are no repercussions to the ruling listed below, there will be no compliance.
  • 2. We, as a district, need to know immediately in order to contact parents and students to choose the educational institution in which they wish to remain enrolled. Finding out months after the fact, helps no one except the parents who just took advantage of "free to them" education. When I mentioned a "free education" in a previous email, these online schools are advertising it in just that way. As we have watched the ads at movie theaters, we have wondered how they could be offering "free online classes". Now we know. Parents are not aware of the fact that they indeed are NOT free, but funded in the same manner as regular public education institutions. There is no mention anywhere that students cannot be enrolled in both.

    Question: This seems to be a serious problem. A student should not be allowed to enroll a student in another school-of-record or non-school-of-record without the "official" school-of-record's (the school accountable for the student and funded for the student) knowledge. What should be done?
    Answer: UTREx can be used to identify these situations and report to each school where the student concurrently enrolled.
  • 3. In a previous discussion, we mentioned that these enrollment overlaps created fatal errors (which were relaxed); however, we must wait until the last report is in before we can find these overlaps. I checked our Primary Enrollment-Warnings log Thursday night and again Friday after the deadline. We had additional students show up who were dually enrolled in that period. There is no time at that point to work through who is the school of record much less notify a parent they need to drop classes. We had an elementary student show up after deadline on Friday who was also enrolled in an online school even though they are attending full time in one of our schools.
  • 4. With SB65 enrollments, we know when a student is taking classes elsewhere; however, with students enrolling in charter schools and now in any educational agency's online offerings outside of SB65, how can we know of these additional enrollments when they occur?
  • 5. While we agree with you concerning the fact that both schools were duped with duplicated enrollment, we still will run into a pro-rating issue. One online school we contacted has seven (7) class periods. They are claiming the student for 5/7 (.71). Our school has five class periods. The student is enrolled in our school for three (3) class periods. If we pro-rate this student with a 3/5 (.6) ratio, the resulting membership would then be 1.31. We have already run into this issue. This will need to be solved before year-end or sooner if it will require that the student be removed from the classes. Another question ... will the SOR become the entity that will be able to claim their pro-rated membership as calculated or will it be somehow split between the two? Again, how will each entity know what the other is claiming and which will take precedence?
  • 6. We have also run into a few instances where we have contacted the other LEA and they have agreed to exit the student since the student was attending our district. However, after checking the UTREX Primary Enrollment Warnings log, that did not occur. We also had a few instances where we did not receive a response from the other LEA even after repeated messages were sent and left via voice mail. Will there be an appeal process after October submission to correct some of these errors?
     
    UTREX does indeed do as it was intended, "to combat such double enrollments and double-funding." However, operationally, the process of solving these issues is a bit messy and confusing.

    Question: Is there any way for the districts to see the AM records from another district?
    Answer: Not right now, but that feature can be added to UTREx

11 a.m.

UTREx Next Phases with roll-out schedules - John Brandt, Clint Thomsen

  • Automated/SIF SSID roll-out - screens and functionality will be explained and demonstrated
    The target for pilot completion (pending SIS readiness) and a production roll-out is January 2012.
  • E-transcripts roll-out – Spring 2012
  • E-records exchange roll-out – Contingent on SIF installations
  • Flat file replacement by SIF

FYI:
• UTREx next phase SLF/SSID Locator -SIF agent in place – January 1, 2012. January 1st is not a deadline, it is a target.
How many SISs will be ready with SIF agent?

  • SIS2000+ - yes
  • PowerSchool – yes
  • Skyward – yes
  • Granite -doesn't know
  • Encore- Davis – Maybe

• UTREx Clearinghouse daily submission via SIF Agent may be implemented within 6-9 months.

• Deadline is September 2013.

• Data submission will still be uploaded to the Data Collector even when the SIF agent is used. The data submission and error process will remain the same.

• The SIF agent will need to be in place to participate in the electronic transcript transfers.

• Transcript information will be submitted nightly via the full SIF agent. Students, parents, and counselors will be able to access the National Transcript Center web site and order transcripts to be sent to their selected schools.
 

11:30 a.m.

Attendance vs. Membership Clarification

Question:

A district recently mentioned with regards to a mismatch of data between days membership and days attended. The discrepancy becomes possible when a student has multiple memberships (some combination of S1,S2,S3) and is in a calendar that has fewer than 180 days.

S1 = 11 days * (180/130) = 15.23 = 15
S2 = 22 days * (180/130) = 30.46 = 30
S1 + S2 = 45 days

S1 Days Attended = 33 days * (180/130) = 45.69 = 46 days

Because of the 180 day basis calculation the Days Attended > S1 + S2 membership.

Is there a rule or procedure to use to ensure that this is not an issue?

Response:

Interesting question and it warrants a well thought out response. I will try it right now but need to copy a few other USOE staff because this may go beyond just an IT issue. The keys to understanding this issue are: there is only an S1 Attendance, none for S2 or S3. Both S2 and S3 self-contained are indicated by a “C” in the Time fields of the S2 and S3 records. S2 resource and S3 resource membership are included ONLY in the S1 Membership.

First, for the current, October 1, submission we are not very concerned with precise accuracy for membership since October membership is not used for reporting. Ditto for attendance and attendance is not used for funding calculations.

However, if this is causing an error, where S1 Attendance cannot be greater than S1 + S2(self-contained) + S3(self-contained) membership then we do not have a problem. I would suggest this could be solved by changing the current validation:

Days Attended,
School Membership (2)

Cannot be greater than total membership in the school (S1+S2+S3 membership)

S1.365

Err

Days Attended > Memb

To

Days Attended,
School Membership (2)

Cannot be greater than total membership in the school (S1+S2+S3 membership) + 2

S1.365

Err

Days Attended > Memb

Otherwise, we do not think this is problem because:

  • S1 and S2 (self-contained – TIME = “C”) membership are used separately for funding purposes.
  • S1 and S2 (self-contained – TIME = “C”) are only added together to ensure reasonableness (i.e. S1 + S2 <= 170 + (10 * number of enrollments)). In this case, the rounding of S1 and S2 separately works in the LEA’s favor resulting in one or two less days thus providing a little more cushion to say under the “180” number.
  • S2 Resource membership may or may not be an issue depending on how the SIS adds S2 resource membership into S1 membership. If S2 resource membership is not kept separately from S1 membership there should be no problem. However, if the S2 resource membership is kept separately and added into separate S1 then there could be a problem. It seems unlikely that any SIS would keep S2 resource membership separately.
  • What is true for S2 self-contained and resource should be true for S3 self-contained and resource. 
 

Some General Notes, Suggestions and observations:

There must be better communications between IT staffs and program areas:
• LEAs and SEA IT staffs need program area people to attend data meetings.

• LEA program staffs need information about data changes to their program areas when they attend meetings with USOE directors.

• Several individuals from large LEAs say their program people claim not to know about changes. However, when going back through the agenda for the program area-lead meetings with LEAs, the items are on the agenda.

•The LEAs' conclusion was that often USOE program staff are getting the message out but LEAs are either not paying attention or it is too complex for them to understand.

• Finally, the program area people need to be training the LEA program area people.

USOE IT needs to be publishing on web or inside the application in the UTREx announcement site:
•The status for enhancement for all products – which ones are in progress and what is the priority of each?

• Changes to applications and data collections

To request changes to UTREX contact Clint Thomsen or present requests at a Data Warehouse Group (DWG) meeting.

Rapidly changing models of instruction are necessitating the reevaluation of school funding practice.

USOE should produce an audit guide to be followed by USOE staff as critical as-of data (e.g. October 1, December 1, March 1(?), EOY) come in. It needs to define the interaction of IT, Data and Stats, School Finance and some data stewards such as Special Education. In addition, USOE and LEAs should develop a document of recommended actions/activities by LEA staffs for auditing these data.

October 1 data are used for:
• -----
• -----
• -----

LEA IT staffs should impress upon their LEA business administrators the need to fully budget for these types of data activities since they are critical to accurate funding of the LEA.

Thank you to everyone form making time in your busy schedules to participate in this meeting.

Late Updated: 11/10/2011