online submission tool frequently asked questions (faqs) (pdf)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CSPR SY 2009-10 Online Submission Tool FAQs

November 2010 i

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR)

SY 2009-10 Online Submission Tool

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

November 2010

Version 1.0


November 2010 ii

This technical guide was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-09-O-0044 with 2020 LLC, Inc. Brandon Scott served as the contracting officer’s representative. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Carmel Martin Assistant Secretary

November 2010 This technical guide is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Consolidated State Performance Report SY 2009-10 – Frequently Asked Questions. On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260–0852 or (202) 260–0818.


November 2010 iii

CONTENTS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 1

2. POLICY-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ................................................................................... 2

3. GENERAL NAVIGATION ................................................................................................... 6

4. CSPR SUBMISSION PROCESS ........................................................................................ 7

5. EDFacts DATA ................................................................................................................... 8

6. CSPR EDIT CHECKS ....................................................................................................... 16


November 2010 1

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

How do I contact technical support?

RESPONSE: SEA Partners can contact the U.S. Department of Education Partner Support Center (PSC) by toll free telephone, fax or e-mail: Telephone: 1-877-457-3336 (877-HLP-EDEN) Fax: 1-888-329-3336 (888-FAX-EDEN) TTY/TDD: 1-888-403-3336 (888-403-EDEN) E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/support.html Hours of operation are between 8am-6pm EST, Monday through Friday except for federal holidays.

When is Part I due?

RESPONSE: Your authorized state official must certify Part I of the CSPR no later than 5:00pm ET, December 17, 2010. Any data provided through EDFacts must be submitted by 5:00pm ET December 16, 2010 in order to appear in the CSPR online tool on December 17, 2010.

When are the dates for Part II?

RESPONSE: Part II will be open to the states the week of January 10, 2011. Your state must certify Part II of the CSPR no later than 5:00pm ET, February 18, 2011. Any data provided through EDFacts must be submitted by 5:00pm ET February 17, 2011 in order to appear in the CSPR online tool on February 18, 2011.

When will the CSPR reopen for corrections?

RESPONSE: Part I Re-opens: 2/28/2011 Closes: 3/16/2011 Part II Re-opens: 4/4/2011 Closes: 4/20/2011

How do I access Parts I & II?

RESPONSE: When open, links to Part I and Part II are located in the left menu navigation panel.

Where can I get a paper copy of a blank CSPR?

RESPONSE: A link to a blank MS Word copy of the CSPR is located in the Getting Started section.


November 2010 2

Can I publish my state’s CSPR?

RESPONSE: Yes. You will always be able to download a PDF version of the current CSPR report. This PDF version can be used to publish the results, and can be published on the state Web site, as well as circulated by e-mail.

When can I print a copy of the forms I filled out through the online tool?

RESPONSE: You can print a PDF version of your CSPR submission any time throughout the process – both before and after certification. Before submission, the PDF may be useful to circulate completed responses and to provide a “final” version to the certifying official prior to certification. After certification, the PDF version can serve as the file copy of the document and will indicate the data is certified and show the certification date. Please note that you can access the PDF version of your CSPR by clicking on the Adobe icon. There is a link directly below the icon that you can use to download the Adobe reader if you do not have this already loaded on your machine.

2. POLICY-SPECIFIC INFORMATION

PART I INFORMATION

For 1.4.8.1, what data from SYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are required?

RESPONSE: The question is concerned with the schools that received assistance through 1003(1) and (g) funds during SY 2009-10. As a means of comparison, the SY 2008-09 data for these same schools are required. No total is required for SY 2008-09 since the totals could potentially be different than SY 2009-10 in the case of a new school in SY 2009-10 that received this assistance. These data are reported in ESS.

For 1.4.8.1, how should states report the total number of students enrolled in schools that received assistance through 1003(a) and (g) funds?

RESPONSE: Report the total number of students enrolled in grades that were assessed under section 1111 of ESEA. This will ensure that the auto-calculated rows (percentages proficient in mathematics and reading) in this item are calculated correctly.

My state conducts Science Assessments at only three grade levels. How should we respond to Question 1.3.3?

RESPONSE: While states are only required to submit data once in each of the 3 age spans, some states may submit science data for more grades. Therefore, the EDFacts assessment fields include each of the grade levels. Enter data in section 1.3.3 for only those grade levels your state assessed science. For any grade level that your state does not assess in science (and therefore does not submit data), a warning message will trigger. This warning will not prevent the SEA from certifying if all of the grade levels for science assessments are not completed. Note that this feature is different from the SY 2008-09 CSPR. Be sure to include an explanation in the Comments field for each grade that is not populated (for science only).


November 2010 3

In question 1.4.9.1.4, how do states report on public school choice for those LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice?

RESPONSE: In the count of LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice (for any of the reasons specified in 1.4.9.1.4), states should include those LEAs that are unable to offer public school choice at one or more grade levels. States should provide the reason(s) why public school choice was not possible in these LEAs in the Comment field. In addition, states may also include in the Comment field the count of LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at all grade levels. For LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at one or more grade levels, states should count as eligible for public school choice all students who attend identified Title I schools. For LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at all grade levels, states should also report that no eligible students were provided the option to transfer. See below for a scenario:

· An LEA has 4 elementary and 2 high schools. · Two of the elementary schools are in improvement status, two are not. · Both high schools are in improvement status. · Therefore, this LEA is able to provide school choice for the elementary school level but not the

high school level. See the uptext for this question: “In the table below provide the number of LEAs in your state that are unable to provide public school choice options to eligible students due to any of the following reasons:

1. All schools at a grade level are in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. 2. LEA only has a single school at the grade level of the school at which students are eligible for public

school choice. 3. LEA's schools are so remote from one another that choice is impracticable.”

There is no choice provided to the students at the high school level; therefore, based on reason #1, this district would be included in this LEA count for this particular question.

How should states that administer their state assessments required under section 1111 of ESEA in the fall ("fall-testing States") report items 1.4.8.1, 1.4.8.2, and 1.4.8.3?

RESPONSE: ED understands that fall-testing states may not be able to respond completely to these items during the initial CSPR Part I submission period because of timing. For item 1.4.8.1, fall-testing states should use the results from the assessments given in fall 2010 (for the SY 2009-10 column) and fall 2009 (for the SY 2008-09 column). For items 1.4.8.2 and 1.4.8.3, fall-testing states should use the results from the assessments given in fall 2010. If these data are available when CSPR Part I opens for revisions, please complete these items at that time. Please include appropriate explanation in the question’s Comment field.

Which states are “fall-testing States" for SY 2009-10?

RESPONSE: ME, MI (Grades 3 - 8 only), NH, ND, RI, VT, WI


November 2010 4

This CSPR is requesting data for SY 2009-10. Are there any questions that ask for data from a school year other than 2009-10?

RESPONSE: Yes.

o Questions 1.4.4.1 and 1.4.5.1 ask for the Improvement Status of Schools and LEAs. These should be entered into the spreadsheets templates that are available for download and then uploaded. The improvement statuses should be for the schools and LEAs as they enter SY 2010-11.

o Part of question 1.4.8.1 asks for proficiency data on schools that received assistance through sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) funds also for SY 2008-09.

o Questions 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 are requesting Graduation and Dropout rate data for SY 2008-09.

o If you are a “fall-testing state” then see above question concerning important SY direction for questions within Section 1.4.

RESPONSE: Only students who took the assessment for the first time during the reporting year (SY 2009-10) should be reported as “first assessment.”

I answered 1.6.3.5.1 as “No” so I skipped to 1.6.3.6. Why are the questions in between showing up on the null value check?

RESPONSE: The null value checks for those questions can be ignored. RESPONSE: If a student has only taken assessments for 2 of the 4 domains in the ELP, that student is reported as “not making progress.” RESPONSE: Teachers who are certified or licensed in the language program or contact area in which they teach. Teachers should only be reported if they are teaching courses specifically designed to provide language support for LEP students.

RESPONSE: States should report the number of certified or licensed teachers who are working in, and an estimate of the number who will be needed in LIEPs for the next five years in the entire state. Note that the number should include not just teachers in the LEAs that receive Title III subgrants, but all certified or licensed teachers teaching in LIEPs for LEP students in the entire state.

Which teachers should be reported in the count in 1.6.6.1?

In 1.6.6.1, which teachers should be reported for the estimate of the number of certified or licensed teachers who are woking in and will, for the next five years, be working in Title III language instruction educational programs (LIEP)?

In 1.6.3.2.1, does the ‘first assessment’ reference an ELP assessment administered in the reporting year or to students who have only taken a single ELP assessment, regardless of the school year?

In 1.6.3.2.2, how do I report a student who has taken only 2 of the required 4 domains of the ELP?


November 2010 5

RESPONSE: No. For this section, if your state has not indicated there are any persistently dangerous schools, a blank will appear in CSPR 1.7 and that blank is equal to zero. Feel free to take advantage of the comment field in 1.7 to ensure 1.7 is not interpreted as no data submitted. RESPONSE: Regardless of which set of funds served which homeless students, ED would like all students served by either (McKinney-Vento) or both sets of funds (McKinney-Vento and ARRA) to be reported in the CSPR and EDFacts as "served by an LEA with a subgrant". The ARRA McKinney-Vento and regular McKinney-Vento appropriations should be treated as a single federal allocation to states. Please see TIP0026 document for a complete response. RESPONSE: At the SEA level, a migrant student is to be reported only once, regardless of the number of LEAs that the student attended. At the LEA level, the state determines the policy for reporting migrant students by LEA. This may include counting the student: (1) for each LEA the student attended, (2) at the LEA that the student attended for the longest period during the reporting period, or (3) at the last LEA that the student attended, etc.

RESPONSE: The only changes states can make to the Part I migrant counts during resubmission are downward revisions. It is each state’s responsibility to ensure that CSPR data are accurate, as certified during the initial submission of the data to ED. When the Authorizing State Official certifies the data, the state attests that all data included in Part I are, to the best of its knowledge, true, reliable, and valid.

If, under rare circumstances a state needs to make an upward child count revision, the State must submit a formal request to the Director of OME sufficiently in advance of the re-open closing day. The request must include detailed justification as to why the state must make an upward revision. Under no circumstance should a state make an upward revision without going through this process. OME may consider a state’s justification invalid, in which case the request for an upward revision will not be granted.

In questions 1.10.1 and 1.10.2, how should migrant students who attended schools in more than one LEA be reported at the LEA level?

In questions 1.10.1 and 1.10.2, how can a state increase its migrant student count(s)?

In section 1.9.2 (LEAs with McKinney-Vento Subgrants), how are the ARRA funds received by the state reported?

Section 1.7 Persistently Dangerous Schools is appearing blank when my state submitted all “NO”s for Persistently Dangerous Status in N/X130 ESEA Status. Shouldn’t this appear as a zero?


November 2010 6

PART II INFORMATION

RESPONSE: In this section, “participation” refers to the receipt of some type of service funded in whole or in part with MEP funds beyond identification and recruitment, inclusion in statewide or local needs assessment, records transfer, or activity insurance. (See the definition of “Services” elsewhere in this glossary.) The assistance may include, but is not limited to, the following types of services: direct provision of instructional services, counseling, referral to other services, health services, continuation of services, and other types of support services. Do not include children who were served under a Title I Schoolwide Program (SWP) where MEP funds where consolidated. RESPONSE: Reading instruction is provided by a MEP-funded teacher for students on a regular or systematic basis, usually for a predetermined period of time. Includes correspondence courses taken by a student under the supervision of a teacher. Note: Children receiving a MEP-funded reading instruction service should be reported only once, regardless of frequency.

3. GENERAL NAVIGATION

Can I use my Internet browser’s Back button?

RESPONSE: The Back button at the bottom of the CSPR screens takes users to the previous screen, but first saves the contents of the current screen. Use this button, rather than the browser’s Back button (at the top left corner of the browser screen), to navigate backwards as the browser’s Back option does not save the contents of the screen. RESPONSE: Both the Continue and Back buttons, when activated, save your CSPR document. Once saved, you can continue to navigate through the CSPR.

My text response does not seem to fit into the allowable limit.

RESPONSE: In order to allow the greatest flexibility in text data input, you can cut and paste text that was created elsewhere (e.g., a Word document). For some of the large text fields, data are limited to a maximum of 8,000 characters for a single response; in others data are limited to a maximum of 4,000 characters. For comment fields, data are limited to a maximum of 4,000 characters for a single response. If you exceed this limit, you will receive the appropriate error message and will be asked to reduce the number of characters in

In section 2.3, to what does the term “participation” refer?

In 2.3.3.1.4.2, what does “reading instruction” mean?

What does the Continue button do?


November 2010 7

the text. We have also added the ability to track the number of characters as the text is entered into text fields so you know when you are getting close to the character limit.

Certain question numbers appear to be skipped. What does this mean?

RESPONSE: In some cases, questions have skipped numbers. This is an indication that a question was included in a prior year’s CSPR, but was subsequently removed from the CSPR.

4. CSPR SUBMISSION PROCESS

Can I still update answers in a section that is noted as Finished?

RESPONSE: Yes, changes to sections can be made up to the time a part is officially certified.

Why is it important to note a section is Finished?

RESPONSE: It lets your state CSPR coordinator know you are done with your section. In addition, the system does not allow the CSPR to be certified and submitted to ED until all sections are noted as Finished.

As a general user, once all my sections are finished, is there anything else I need to do?

RESPONSE: You can download the pre-certified version of the CSPR and verify the answers that you provided. Otherwise, no further action is needed; your CSPR coordinator will see that your section is noted as finished.

How many files can I upload for questions 1.4.4.1 and 1.4.5.1 (Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement)?

RESPONSE: You can upload one file per question. If you realize you uploaded an incorrect file, just upload the corrected file and the system will replace the original file. RESPONSE: Nothing. The Department has built a report that will extract the data from ESS once a state has submitted N/X132. If you would like a copy of the response that will be part of your state’s CSPR, please run the EDEN012 report found in the Submission Status folder in EDFacts.

How does my state submit our CSPR to ED?

RESPONSE: The specific instructions on how to submit your CSPR to ED can be found by accessing the CSPR Home page, clicking the Getting Started button, and following the instructions provided to you under the Certification and Transmittal to ED link. ED does not see the contents of your CSPR submission until your state certifies that it is complete.

My state needs to certify my CSPR and submit to ED. However, I do not see the Data Certification button as the instructions in Getting Started suggest.

What do I need to do to generate the responses to question 1.4.5.8.2 (Section 1003(a) and (g) Allocations to LEAs and Schools)?


November 2010 8

RESPONSE: Check the following: a. Are all sections marked as “Finished”? The system will not display the Data Certification

button if one or more sections are still marked as “Started” or “Not Started.” b. Do you have “certify” rights? Check with your state’s CSPR coordinator to confirm.

If answers to the above questions are “yes”, please contact the PSC for support.

What if I need to update the CSPR after my state has already certified and submitted it to ED, but prior to the due date?

RESPONSE: Your state’s managing user will need to create a new version of the CSPR. The specific instructions on how to submit your CSPR can be found by accessing the CSPR Home page, clicking the Getting Started button, choosing the Certification and Transmittal to ED link, and following the instructions provided to you under the subheading of Additional CSPR Versions. RESPONSE: It is best to modify the data for your state to fit the form, as that will produce more accurate results than if ED makes similar modifications. If you cannot make the data fit the form, use the comments field to provide additional data information and/or notes.

What business rules are implemented in CSPR for percentages?

RESPONSE: The CSPR provides validity checks for percentages greater than 100% (warning) and percentages greater than 999% (error).

5. EDFACTS DATA

What data are provided from the EDEN Submission System?

RESPONSE: For a majority of tables in the CSPR, responses will be populated by state submissions of EDFacts data.

There are only two types of data submissions:

1. Mandatory: This type means that data are provided by a state submission to EDFacts. For these

questions, the CSPR data can only be modified by a resubmission into EDFacts.

2. Manual: This type means that data are entered manually by a state in the CSPR online tool.

The following table contains a complete list of the CSPR questions that are populated by EDFacts data. Tech Tip! The SEA level EDFacts data are refreshed on a nightly basis. This means that data files submitted to EDFacts one day will show up on the population screens the next day.

The data for my state do not match the data format required in the CSPR form. How do I provide the data?


November 2010 9

CSPR EDFacts

# Question File Spec Data Group Category Set

Reporting Level Comment

1.2.1 Participation of Students in Math Assessment N/X081 588 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.2.2

Participation of Students with Disabilities in Math Assessment N/X093 618 A SEA subject = math

1.2.3

Participation of Students in Reading/Language Arts Assessment N/X081 589 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.2.4 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Reading/LA N/X093 618 A SEA subject = reading/LA

1.2.5 Participation of Students in Science Assessment N/X081 590 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.3.1 Student Achievement - Math N/X075 583 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.3.2 Student Achievement – Reading/LA N/X078 584 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.3.3 Student Achievement – Science N/X079 585 Subtotal 1, A - F SEA

1.4.1 All Schools & Districts Accountability N/X103 32 School & LEA

1.4.2 Title I School Accountability N/X129 22 School

1.4.2 Title I School Accountability N/X103 32 School

1.4.3 Districts that Received Title I Funds N/X103 32 LEA

1.4.3 Districts that Received Title I Funds 582 LEA

ED sent list of districts receiving Title I funds to states for confirmation prior to CSPR opening

1.4.4.3 Corrective Action N/X152 686 A LEA

1.4.4.4 Restructuring – Year 2 N/X153 687 A LEA

1.4.8.1

Student Proficiency for Schools receiving Section 1003(a) and (g) Funds N/X132 693 School

1.4.8.1

Student Proficiency for Schools receiving Section 1003(a) and (g) Funds N/X075 583 Subtotal 1 School

1.4.8.1

Student Proficiency for Schools receiving Section 1003(a) and (g) Funds N/X078 584 Subtotal 1 School

1.4.8.2

School Improvement Status & School Improvement Assistance N/X132 693 School

middle row is manual entry


November 2010 10

CSPR EDFacts



1.4.8.2



1.4.8.2



1.4.8.5.2

Sections 1003(a) & (g) Allocations to LEAs and Schools N/X132 693 A School

1.4.8.5.2

Sections 1003(a) & (g) Allocations to LEAs and Schools N/X132 694 A School

1.4.9.1.2 Public School Choice - Students N/X010 574 SEA Rows 2 & 3

1.4.9.1.2 Public School Choice - Students N/X010 544 SEA Rows 2 & 3

1.4.9.1.3 Funds Spent on Public School Choice N/X131 652 LEA

1.4.9.2.2 Supplemental Educational Services – Students N/X128 578 SEA



1.4.9.2.3 Funds Spent on Supplemental Educational Services N/X131 651 LEA

1.5.1

Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who are Highly Qualified N/X063 381 A SEA

Columns 1,2,4 (SEA level)

1.5.1

Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who are Highly Qualified N/X064 383 A SEA

Columns 1,2,4 (SEA level)

1.5.3 Poverty Quartiles and Metrics Used N/X103 699 School



1.6.2.1 ALL LEP Students in State N/X141 678 A SEA

1.6.2.2 LEP Students who Received Title III LIEP Services N/X116 648 Grand Total SEA

1.6.2.3 Most Commonly Spoken Languages N/X141 678 B SEA Only top 5 languages

1.6.3.1.1 ALL LEP Students Tested on State Annual ELP Assessment N/X137 674 A & B SEA


November 2010 11

CSPR EDFacts



1.6.3.1.2 ALL LEP Student ELP Results N/X139 676 A SEA

1.6.3.2.1

Title III LEP Students Tested on State Annual ELP Assessment N/X138 675

1st table - A; 2nd table - B SEA

1.6.3.2.2 Title III LEP ELP Results N/X050 151 A SEA

1.6.3.6.1 Title III served MFLEP by Year Monitored N/X126 668 A SEA

1.6.3.6.2 MFLEP Students Results - Math N/X126 668 B SEA Academic subject = math

1.6.3.6.3 MFLEP Students Results - Reading/LA N/X126 668 B B

Academic subject = Reading/LA

1.6.3.6.4 MFLEP Students Results - Science N/X126 668 B B

Academic subject = science

1.6.6.1 Teacher Information N/X067 422 A SEA 1st row

1.7 Persistently Dangerous Schools N/X130 36 School

1.8.1 Graduation Rates (SY 2008-09) N/X041 563 Grand Total, A - F SEA

1.9.2.1

Homeless Children & Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Subgrants N/X043 560 A SEA

1.9.2.2 Subgroups of Homeless Students Served N/X043 560 B - E SEA

1.9.2.5.1 Reading Assessment (Homeless) N/X078 584 G SEA

1.9.2.5.2 Math Assessment (Homeless) N/X075 583 G SEA

1.10.1 Category 1 Child Count (Migrant) N/X121 634

Subtotal 1 minus (under 3yr olds) SEA

1.10.2 Category 2 Child Count (Migrant) N/X122 635 A SEA

2.1.1.1 Student Achievement in Math in SWP N/X075 583 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.1 Student Achievement in Math in SWP N/X129 22 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.2 Student Achievement in Reading/LA in SWP N/X078 584 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.2 Student Achievement in Reading/LA in SWP N/X129 22 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.3 Student Achievement in Math in TAS N/X075 583 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.3 Student Achievement in Math in TAS N/X129 22 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.4 Student Achievement in Reading/LA in TAS N/X078 584 Subtotal 1 School

2.1.1.4 Student Achievement in Reading/LA in TAS N/X129 22 Subtotal 1 School


November 2010 12

CSPR EDFacts



2.1.2.1

Student Participation in Public Title I, Part A by Special Services or Programs N/X037 548 B – E SEA

2.1.2.2

Student Participation in Public Title I, Part A by Racial/Ethnic Group N/X037 548 A SEA

2.1.2.3 Student Participation in Public Title I, Part A by Grade Level N/X134 670 A SEA

2.1.2.4.1

Student Participation in Public Title I, Part A TAS by Instructional Services N/X036 549 A SEA

2.1.2.4.2

Student Participation in Public Title I, Part A TAS by Support Services N/X036 549 B SEA

2.1.3 Staff Info for Title I, Part A TAS N/X065 550 A SEA Except % Qualified

2.3.1.1 Eligible Migrant Children N/X121 634 Subtotal 1 (ages birth -2 ) SEA

Remainder populated from 1.10.1

2.3.1.2 Priority for Services – all eligible migrant children N/X121 634 B SEA

2.3.1.3 Limited English Proficient – all eligible migrant children N/X121 634 C SEA

2.3.1.4

Children with Disabilities (IDEA) – all eligible migrant children N/X121 634 D SEA

2.3.1.5 Last Qualifying Move (Migrant) N/X121 634 E SEA

2.3.1.6 Qualifying Move During Regular SY (Migrant) N/X121 634 F SEA

2.3.2.1 Dropouts (Migrants) – all eligible migrant children N/X032 326 E SEA

2.3.2.3.1 Reading/LA Participation – all eligible migrant children N/X081 589 F SEA Subj = reading

2.3.2.3.2 Math Participation – all eligible migrant children N/X081 588 F SEA Subj = math

2.3.3.1.1 Served – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X123 636 A SEA

2.3.3.1.2 Priority for Services – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X123 636 B SEA

2.3.3.1.3 Continuation of Services – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X123 636 C SEA


November 2010 13

CSPR EDFacts



2.3.3.1.4.1 Instructional Service – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Regular SY+ Instruction service SEA

2.3.3.1.4.2 Type of Instructional Service – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Regular SY + reading/LA, math, high school SEA

2.3.3.1.4.3

Support Services with Breakout for Counseling Service – Regular SY (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Regular SY + Support services & Counseling service SEA

2.3.3.1.4.4 Referral Service – Regular SY N/X145 684 A = Regular SY + Referral service SEA

2.3.3.2.1 Served – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X124 637 A SEA

2.3.3.2.2 Priority for Services – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X124 637 B SEA

2.3.3.2.3 Continuation of Services – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X124 637 C SEA

2.3.3.2.4.1 Instructional Service – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Summer/Intersession + Instructional service SEA

2.3.3.2.4.2 Type of Instructional Service – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Summer/Intersession + reading/LA, math, high school SEA

2.3.3.2.4.3

Support Services with Breakout for Counseling Service – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Summer/Intersession + Support services & Counseling service SEA

2.3.3.2.4.4 Referral Service – Summer/intersession (Migrant) N/X145 684

A = Summer/Intersession + Referral service SEA


November 2010 14

CSPR EDFacts



2.3.3.3 MEP Participation - Program Year N/X054 102 A SEA

2.3.4.1 Schools and Enrollment N/X132 110 School

2.3.4.2 Schools Where MEP Funds were Consolidated in SWP N/X132 110 School If yes

2.3.4.2 Schools Where MEP Funds were Consolidated in SWP N/X132 514 School If yes

2.3.6.1.2 MEP Staff N/X065 515 A SEA

2.3.6.1.2 MEP Staff N/X065 625 A SEA

2.4.1.1 Programs/Facilities - Subpart 1 N/A N/A N/A Column 1

2.4.1.2 Students Served – Subpart 1 N/X119 656 Subtotal 1 State Agency Chart 1; row 1

2.4.1.2 Students Served – Subpart 1 N/X135 672 A State Agency Chart 1;row 2

2.4.1.2 Students Served – Subpart 1 N/X119 656 A State Agency Chart 2

2.4.1.2 Students Served – Subpart 1 N/X119 656 B State Agency Chart 3

2.4.1.2 Students Served – Subpart 1 N/X119 656 C State Agency Chart 4

2.4.1.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading – Subpart 1 N/X135 672 B = below A = both State Agency

Chart 1, row 1 Chart 1, row 2 Subj = reading

2.4.1.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading – Subpart 1 N/X113 628 A State Agency Chart 2 Subj = reading

2.4.1.6.2 Academic Performance in Math – Subpart 1 N/X135 672 B = below A = both State Agency

Chart 1, row 1 Chart 1, row 2 Subj = math

2.4.1.6.2 Academic Performance in Math – Subpart 1 N/X113 628 A State Agency Chart 2 Subj = math

2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2 N/X127 657 Subtotal 1 Chart 1; row 1

2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2 N/X135 671 A Chart 1;row 2

2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2 N/X127 657 A Chart 2

2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2 N/X127 657 B Chart 3

2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2 N/X127 657 C Chart 4

2.4.2.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading – Subpart 2 N/X135 671 B = below A = both LEA

Chart 1, row 1 Chart 1, row 2 Subj = reading

2.4.2.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading – Subpart 2 N/X125 629 A LEA Chart 2 Subj = reading

2.4.2.6.2 Academic Performance in Math – Subpart 2 N/X135 671 B = below A = both LEA

Chart 1, row 1 Chart 1, row 2 Subj = math


November 2010 15

CSPR EDFacts



2.4.2.6.2 Academic Performance in Math – Subpart 2 N/X125 629 A LEA Chart 2 Subj = math

Lastly, we recommend that you establish contact with the EDFacts coordinator in your state. If you do not know your state’s EDFacts coordinator, please see: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/ess/edfacts-coordinators.pdf is particularly important if no EDFacts data appear in your state’s online CSPR. RESPONSE: Data refresh between CSPR and EDEN is a nightly operation for SEA level data. Only EDFacts data viewed via CSPR will be refreshed. Your manually-entered CSPR values will not be edited or refreshed.

If the data in the online CSPR appear to be in error, what should I do?

RESPONSE: We recommend that you contact your state’s EDFacts coordinator immediately to learn more about the data files submitted by your state for the CSPR. If there is an error in the EDEN file submission, the EDFacts coordinator in your state can resubmit those data and the new information will show up in the CSPR the next day. If the CSPR data are still not correct, we recommend that you add a note in the comments field indicating any known reasons for the data discrepancy.

How are data populated in question 1.4.3, Accountability of Districts That Received Title I Funds?

RESPONSE: A spreadsheet containing the districts that received SY 2009-10 Title I Funds from ED was distributed by PSC in September. Your state responded to confirm the spreadsheet’s accuracy or with any corrections. This populates the first field (# Districts That Received Title I Funds) in question 1.4.3. AYP status is obtained from N/X103. The two sources are cross-referenced by the LEA NCES ID to provide the answer to the second field (# Districts That Received Title I Funds and Made AYP in SY 2009-10) in question 1.4.3 and then the percentage is automatically calculated.

How does the system determine proficiency percentages?

RESPONSE: Recently, your state should respond to an online Academic Achievement Questionnaire (AAL) that was distributed by ED via EMAPS. The responses will indicate your state’s proficiency level threshold. For questions 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, these responses are cross-referenced with your state’s submission of N/X075, N/X078, N/X079, and N/X003 to determine which students are performing at or above proficient. The percentage is then automatically calculated.

How often is the CSPR refreshed with EDFacts data?


November 2010 16

Why am I unable to place my cursor in a cell on a question that has data coming from EDFacts or change the data in the online tool?

RESPONSE: If the data are provided from EDFacts, the online CSPR will not allow the user to input data manually. A new file must be submitted through EDFacts to change the data.

6. CSPR EDIT CHECKS

What is the purpose of an edit check?

RESPONSE: Edit checks have been added to the CSPR and include year-to-year changes and internal consistency checks. These checks are intended to improve the overall quality of the data. Upon triggering an edit check, the respondent should carefully check data to ensure they are accurate.

What are the edit checks in the CSPR System Part I?

RESPONSE: These edit checks are the same as those from the previous year’s CSPR. See below for a complete list of edit checks for Part I:

Question Number Edit Check Edit Check Type

1.2.1

The number of all students tested is greater than 105% or less than 95% of the sum of the all students who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (as reported by grade level) in 1.3.1. Explain. Flag with comment

1.2.1

The number of students in each subgroup tested is greater than 105% or less than 95% of the number of students for each subgroup of students who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (as reported by grade level) in 1.3.1. Explain. Flag with comment

1.2.1 The percentage of students tested is less than 95% for all students and/or one or more subgroups. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.2.2

The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the regular assessment (with or without accommodations) is less than 80% (percent is equal to row 1 number plus row 2 number divided by the auto calculation total multiplied by 100). Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.2.2 The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards is greater than 30%. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.2.2 The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards is greater than 15%. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.2.2 The total number of children with disabilities (IDEA) tested in 1.2.2 does not equal the number of children with disabilities (IDEA) tested in 1.2.1. Explain. Flag with comment

1.2.2 And 1.3.1

The number of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) tested should equal the number of all Children with Disabilities (IDEA) who completed the assessment and for who a proficiency level was assigned (reported by grade level in Section 1.3). Explain. Flag with comment

1.2.3


1.2.3

The number of students in each subgroup tested is greater than 105% or less than 95% of the sum of the all students who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (as reported by grade level) in 1.3.2. Explain. Flag with comment


1.2.4 The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the regular assessment (with or without accommodations) is less than 80%. Check data carefully. Flag without comment



November 2010 17




1.2.4 And 1.3.2


1.2.5


1.2.5

The number of students in each subgroup tested is greater than 105% or less than 95% of the sum of the all students who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (as reported by grade level) in 1.3.3. Explain. Flag with comment


1.2.6 The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the regular assessment (with or without accommodations) is less than 80%. Check data carefully. Flag without comment




1.2.6 And 1.3.3


1.3.1 The percentage of students scoring at or above proficient is greater than 100%. Correct data. Flag without comment

1.3.1 The number of all students tested is greater than 105% or less than 95% of the sum of male and female students tested. Explain. Flag with comment

1.3.1 There was an increase or decrease of 20 percentage points or more from the previous year for all students and/or one or more subgroups "who completed the assessment." Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.3.1 The number of students proficient or above is not reported for all students and/or one or more AYP subgroups. Enter data. Fatal flaw

1.3.1 The percentage at or above proficient increased or decreased by 15 percentage points or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment



1.3.2 There was an increase or decrease of 20 percentage points or more from the previous year for all students and/or one or more subgroups "who completed the assessment." Check data carefully. Flag without comment


1.3.2 The percentage of students at or above proficient increased or decreased by 15 percentage points or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment




1.4.1 The total number of districts increased or decreased by 10% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.1 The total number of schools increased or decreased by 10% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.1 The total number of schools making AYP increased or decreased by 20% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment


November 2010 18


1.4.2 No value was submitted through EDFacts file N/X129 for the Total number of Title I schools. The file must be resubmitted with this information in order to finish this section of the CSPR. Fatal flaw

1.4.2

No value can be calculated for the Total number of Title I schools making AYP. Data are needed from EDFacts files N/X129 and N/X103 to complete this question. Information must be submitted through those files in order to finish this section of the CSPR. Fatal flaw

1.4.2

No value can be calculated for the percent of Title I schools making AYP. Data are needed from EDFacts files N/X129 and N/X103 to complete this question. Information must be submitted through those files in order to finish this section of the CSPR. Fatal flaw

1.4.2 The total number of Title I schools is greater than the total number of All (Title I and Non-Title I) schools (from 1.4.1). Correct data. Flag without comment

1.4.2 The total number of Title I schools increased or decreased by 10% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.2 The total number of Title I schools making AYP increased or decreased by 10% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.3 The total number of districts receiving Title I funds is greater than the total number of All (Title I and Non-Title I) districts (from 1.4.1). Correct data. Flag without comment

1.4.3 The total number of Title I districts increased or decreased by 10% or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.8.2

The number of schools receiving assistance through section 1003(a) and/or1003(g) funds that exited improvement status is greater than the number of schools receiving assistance through section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds that made AYP. Correct data. Flag with comment

1.4.8.3

The number of schools in which the strategy(s) was used (Column 3) is less than the number of schools that used the strategy(s), made AYP, and exited improvement status (Column 4) and/or the number of schools that used the strategy(s), made AYP, but did not exit improvement status (Column 5). Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.8.5.1 The response for state reservations is greater than four percent. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.9.1.2 The number of students who transferred is greater than the number of students who applied to transfer. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.9.1.2 The number of students who applied to transfer is greater than the number of students who were eligible to transfer. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.9.1.2 No value was entered for either the number of students eligible for public school choice or the number of students participating in public school choice. Enter data. Fatal flaw

1.4.9.2.2 The number of students who received SES is greater than the number of students who applied for SES. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.9.2.2 The number of students who applied for SES is greater than the number of students who were eligible for SES. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.4.9.2.2 No value was entered for either the number of students eligible for supplemental educational services or the number of students participating in supplemental educational services. Enter data. Fatal flaw

1.5.1 Sum of the number of core academic classes taught by HQT and the number of core academic classes taught by non-HQT does not equal the total number of classes in all students. Explain. Flag with comment

1.5.1 Sum of core academic classes in all elementary schools and all secondary schools does not equal the total number of core academic classes in all schools. Explain. Flag with comment

1.6.3.1.1 The number of LEP students tested on a State annual English language proficiency assessment is less than 95% or greater than 105% of the total LEP population reported in question 1.6.2.1. Explain. Flag with comment

1.6.3.2.1

The number of Title III served LEP students assessed on State annual English language proficiency assessments is less than 95% or greater than 105% of the total number of Title III students reported in 1.6.2.2. Explain. Flag with comment

1.8.1 Graduation rates for all students or one or more subgroups are less than 20 percent or greater than 99 percent. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.8.1 The All students graduation rate is not reported. Please provide. Flag with comment

1.8.1 The graduation rate increased or decreased by 10 percentage points or more from the previous year. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.8.2 The dropout rate increased or decreased by 10 percentage points or more. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.8.2 Dropout rates are not between 1 and 99 percent. Check data carefully. Flag without comment

1.8.2 All students drop out rate is not reported. Provide response or explain why no response is entered. Flag with comment

1.9.1.2 The total in 1.9.1.2 does not equal the total in 1.9.1.1. Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 19


1.9.2.3 The number of subgrantees reported for one or more services is greater than the number of LEAs with sub grants in 1.9. Explain. Flag with comment

1.9.2.4 The number of subgrantees reported for one or more barriers is greater than the number of LEAs with sub grants in 1.9. Explain. Flag with comment

1.9.2.5.1

The reported number of Homeless Children/Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Who Scored At or Above Proficient on the State reading assessment (by grade) was greater than the number of Homeless Children/Youths Served by McKinney-Vento who took the assessment (by grade). Explain. Flag with comment

1.9.2.5.2

The reported number of Homeless Children/Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Who Scored At or Above Proficient on the State mathematics assessment (by grade) was greater than the number of Homeless Children/Youths Served by McKinney-Vento who took the assessment (by grade). Explain. Flag with comment

1.10.1 Please note that data for this question cannot be revised in a way that increases the student counts after the CSPR Part I certification and submission deadline (Dec 18, 2009). Explain. Flag with comment

1.10.2 Please note that data for this question cannot be revised in a way that increases the student counts after the CSPR Part I certification and submission deadline (Dec 18, 2009). Explain. Flag with comment

What are the edit checks in the CSPR System Part II?

RESPONSE: These edit checks are the same as those from the previous year’s CSPR. See below for a complete list of edit checks for Part II: Question Number Edit Check Edit Check Type

2.1.1.1

The number of 3rd grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of second row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 3th grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 3rd grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the second row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the second row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 4th grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of third row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 4th grade table for 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 4th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the third row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the third row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 5th grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fourth row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 5th grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 5th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 6th grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fifth row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 6th grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 20


2.1.1.1

The number of 6th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 7th grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of sixth row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 7th grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 7th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 8th grade students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of seventh row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 8th grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of 8th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of HS students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of eighth row of 2.1.1.1) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the HS grade table in 1.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The number of HS students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.1)is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.1

The sum of the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in grades 3-8 and high school (sum of column two across the second through eighth rows) does not equal the number reported in the Total row (the second column of the ninth row). Flag without comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 3rd grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of second row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 3rd grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 3rd grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the second row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the second row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 4th grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of third row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 4th grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 4th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the third row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the third row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 5th grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fourth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 5th grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 21


2.1.1.2

The number of 5th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 6th grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fifth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 6th grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 6th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 7th grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of sixth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 7th grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 7th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 8th grade students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of seventh row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 8th grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of 8th grade students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of HS students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of eighth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the HS grade table in 1.3.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The number of HS students in SWP scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.2) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.2). Explain. Flag with comment

2.1.1.2

The sum of the number of students in SWP who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in grades 3-8 and high school (sum of column two across the second through eighth rows) does not equal the number reported in the Total row (the second column of the ninth row). Check data carefully. Flag without comment

2.1.1.3

The number of 3rd grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of second row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 3rd grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 3rd grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the second row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the second row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 4th grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of third row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 4th grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal


November 2010 22


2.1.1.3

The number of 4th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the third row of 2.1.1.3)is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the third row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 5th grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fourth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 5th grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 5th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 6th grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fifth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 6th grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 6th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.3)is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 7th grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of sixth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 7th grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 7th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.3)is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 8th grade students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of seventh row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the 8th grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of 8th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of HS students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of eighth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.1 (second column of the All Students row of the HS grade table in 1.3.1). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The number of HS students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.3) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.3). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.3

The sum of the number of students in TAS who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in grades 3-8 and high school (sum of column two across the second through eighth rows) does not equal the number reported in the Total row (the second column of the ninth row). Check data carefully. Flag without comment

2.1.1.4

The number of 3rd grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of second row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 3rd grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 3rd grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on math assessment (reported in the third column of the second row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in SWP who completed the math assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the second row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal


November 2010 23


2.1.1.4

The number of 4th grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of third row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 4th grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 4th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the third row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the third row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 5th grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fourth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 5th grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 5th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fourth row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 6th grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of fifth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 6th grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 6th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the fifth row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 7th grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of sixth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 7th grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 7th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the sixth row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 8th grade students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of seventh row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the 8th grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of 8th grade students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the seventh row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of HS students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in second column of eighth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than or equal to the number of "All Students" who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the corresponding grade reported in 1.3.2 (second column of the All Students row of the HS grade table in 1.3.2). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The number of HS students in TAS scoring at or above proficient on reading/LA assessment (reported in the third column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.4) is greater than the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned (reported in the second column of the eighth row of 2.1.1.4). Correct data. Fatal

2.1.1.4

The sum of the number of students in TAS who completed the reading/LA assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in grades 3-8 and high school (sum of column two across the second through eighth rows) does not equal the number reported in the Total row (the second column of the ninth row). Check data carefully Flag without comment

2.1.2.2 The number reported for one or more racial/ethnic groups equals zero. Check data carefully Flag without comment


November 2010 24


2.1.3 The sum of FTE teachers and paraprofessionals (row 2) in TAS is less than the sum of the other paraprofessionals, clerical support staff, and administrators (rows 3-5). Check data carefully Flag without comment

2.2.1.2 The reported number of adults participating is less than the reported number of families participating. Check data carefully Flag without comment

2.2.1.2 The reported number of adults participating who are LEP is greater than the reported number of adults. Check data carefully Flag without comment

2.2.1.3 The reported number of newly enrolled adult participants is less than the reported number of newly enrolled families. Check data carefully Flag without comment

2.2.1.3 The reported number of newly enrolled families at or below the federal poverty level at the time of enrollment is greater than the reported number of newly enrolled families. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.1 The reported number who met the goal on TABE was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.1 The reported number who met the goal on CASAS was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.1 The reported number who met the goal on Other was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.2 The reported number of Adult English Learners who met the goal on BEST was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.2 The reported number of Adult English Learners who met the goal on CASAS was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.2 The reported number of Adult English Learners who met the goal on TABE was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.2 The reported number of Adult English Learners who met the goal on Other was greater than the reported number pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.3 The reported number of school age adults who met their goal of earning a diploma was greater than the number of school age adults with the goal of earning a diploma. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.3 The reported number of school age adults who met their goal of earning a GED was greater than the number of school age adults with the goal of earning a GED. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.3 The reported number of non-school age adults who met their goal of earning a diploma was greater than the number of non-school age adults with the goal of earning a diploma. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.3 The reported number of non-school age adults who met their goal of earning a GED was greater than the number of non-school age adults with the goal of earning a GED. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4 The reported number of children who met the goal on the PPVT-III was greater than the number of children who were pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4 The reported number of children who met the goal on the PPVT-IV was greater than the number of children who were pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4 The reported number of children who met the goal on the TVIP was greater than the number of children who were pre- and post-tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4.1 The reported number of children who met the goal on the PPVT-III was greater than the number of children who were tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4.1 The reported number of children who met the goal on the PPVT-IV was greater than the number of children who were tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.4.1 The reported number of children who met the goal on the TVIP was greater than the number of children who were tested. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.5 The reported number of children tested was greater than the number of children who were age-eligible. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.6 The reported number of children in kindergarten who met the goal was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.6 The reported number of children in first grade who met the goal was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.6 The reported number of children in second grade who met the goal was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.6 The reported number of children in third grade who met the goal was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 25


2.2.2.7 The reported number of parents who met the goal on PEP Scale I was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.7 The reported number of parents who met the goal on PEP Scale II was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.7 The reported number of parents who met the goal on PEP Scale III was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.2.2.7 The reported number of parents who met the goal on PEP Scale IV was greater than the number in the cohort. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.1.1 For table total (2.3.1.1.18.1), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.1.2 Values in each row of table 2.3.1.2 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment





2.3.1.5 For table totals (2.3.1.5.18.x), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.1.5 Values for each cell in table 2.3.1.5 by age/grade are more than values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment




2.3.2.1 Total for Table 2.3.2.1 is more than the total for table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.2 Difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.2 Value reported in Table 2.3.2.2 is greater than the combined total of (Grades 9-12 + Ungraded + Out-of-school) in Table 2.3.1.1 Eligible Migrant Children. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.1 For table totals (2.3.2.3.1.12.x), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.1 Values in each cell of Table 2.3.2.3.1 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.1 Within Table 2.3.2.3.1, values by age/grade in Tested column are greater than values for same age/grade in Enrolled column. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.2 For table totals (2.3.2.3.2.12.x), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.2 Values in each cell of Table 2.3.2.3.2 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.2.3.2 Within Table 2.3.2.3.2, values by age/grade in Tested column are greater than values for same age/grade in Enrolled column. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.1 For table total (2.3.3.1.1.18.1), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.1 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.1.1 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 26



2.3.3.1.2 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.1.2 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.1.1 (Served). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.2 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.1.2 (Priority for Services-served) by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.2 (Priority for Services-eligible). Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.3.1.3 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.1.3 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.1.1 (Served). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.4.1 For table total (2.3.3.1.4.1.18.1), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.4.2 For table totals (2.3.3.1.4.2.18.x), difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.1.4.2 Values in each cell of Table 2.3.3.1.4.2 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.1.4.1 (Instructional Service). Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.3.1.4.3 Within Table 2.3.3.1.4.3, values for each row by age/grade in Counseling Service column is more than the value on the same row for same age/grade in Support Services column. Explain. Flag with comment



2.3.3.2.1 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.2.1 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1 (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.3.2.2 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.2.2 by age/grade is more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.2.1 (Served). Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.3.2.2 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.2.2 (Priority for Services-served) by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.2 (Priority for Services-eligible). Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.3.2.3 Values in each row of Table 2.3.3.2.3 by age/grade are more than values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.2.1 (Served). Explain. Flag with comment



2.3.3.2.4.2 Values in each cell of Table 2.3.3.2.4.2 by age/grade are more than the values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.3.2.4.1 (Instructional Service). Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.3.2.4.3 Within Table 2.3.3.2.4.3, values for each row by age/grade in Counseling Service column is more than the value on the same row for same age/grade in Support Services column. Explain. Flag with comment



2.3.3.3 Values in table 2.3.3.3 by age/grade are more than values for same age/grade in Table 2.3.1.1. (Eligible Migrant Children). Explain. Flag with comment




November 2010 27



2.3.6.1.1 Difference between previous year and current year value is 25 percent or more. Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.6.1.2 Values in each FTE column (regular school year, summer/intersession term) are more than the corresponding values in the Headcount columns in table 2.3.6.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment


2.3.6.1.3 Values in each FTE column (regular school year, summer/intersession term) are more than the corresponding values in the Headcount columns in table 2.3.6.1.3. Explain. Flag with comment

2.3.6.1.3

Values reported in each Headcount column of Table 2.3.6.1.3 (Regular School Year, Summer/Intersession Term) are more than the corresponding Headcount values for All Paraprofessionals in Table 2.3.6.1.2 (2.3.6.1.2.1.3.1 and 2.3.6.1.2.2.3.1). Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.1.1 (for each of the 5 service locations) The reported average length of stay in days is greater than 365. Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.1.1.1 (for each of the 5 service locations) The reported number is greater than the number reported in 2.4.1.1 for same service location. Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.1.2 (for each of the 5 service locations)

The reported number of long-term students served is larger than the reported total unduplicated students served. Explain. Flag with comment


The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for race/ethnicity does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for gender does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for age does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


Number (per cell) is greater than the number reported in 2.4.1.1 for same service location. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs reported in 2.4.1.1. Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.1.4.1 (for each of the 4 service locations)

Number (per cell) is greater than the unduplicated number of students reported in 2.4.1.2 for same service location. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of the unduplicated number of students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment


Number (per cell) is greater than the unduplicated number of students reported in 2.4.1.2 for same service location. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number is greater than the SUM of the unduplicated number of students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 28



Number (per cell) is greater than the unduplicated number of students reported in 2.4.1.2 for same service location. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported in this column is greater than the SUM of the unduplicated number of students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment



2.4.1.6.1 (for each of 4 service locations)

Row 1: Number of long-term students testing below grade level exceeds number of long-term students reported in 2.4.1.2. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment


Row 2: Number of long-term students with complete pre-posttest data exceeds number of long-term students reported in 2.4.1.2. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment


Number of students demonstrating results (sum of rows 3-7) does not equal the number with complete test results (row 2). Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2. Explain. Flag with comment






Number of students demonstrating results (sum of rows 3-7) does not equal the number with complete test results (row 2). Explain. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.1.2 Flag with comment

2.4.2.1 (for each of the 5 service locations) Average length of stay in days is greater than 365. Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.2.1.1 (for each of the 5 service locations) Number is greater than number reported in 2.4.2.1 for same service location. Explain. Flag with comment

2.4.2.2 (for each of the 5 service locations) The number of long-term students is greater than the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for race/ethnicity does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


November 2010 29



The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for gender does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


The total number of students (auto-calc) reported for age does not equal the unduplicated count of students. Explain. Flag with comment


Number (per cell) is greater than number reported in 2.4.2.1. Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported here is greater than the SUM of the juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs reported in 2.4.2.1. Explain. Flag with comment














Number of students demonstrating results (sum of rows 3-7) does not equal the number with complete test results (row 2). Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported in this column is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.2.2. Explain. Flag with comment






November 2010 30



Number of students demonstrating results (sum of rows 3-7) does not equal the number with complete test results (row 2). Exception: for juvenile detention/corrections category note that this service location has been combined and the number reported in this column is greater than the SUM of the long-term students reported in juvenile detention and juvenile corrections programs in 2.4.2.2. Explain. Flag with comment

2.10.2.1 The total across all rows entered into column 2 of table 2.10.2.1.2 does not equal the total across all rows entered into column 3 of table 2.10.2.1.2. Correct data. Fatal

What are the differences in the “Error Level if outside acceptable range” column?

RESPONSE: There are three types of edits. For each type of edit, you should review your data carefully and take necessary action, as indicated by the flag:

� Flag with comment: Correct the data if necessary. If the data appear to be accurate upon review, please explain why the data are outside the edit check range.

� Flag without comment: You may enter a comment explaining your response. � Fatal Flaw: For this type of flag, there is a problem with your response (or lack of response). Your

state will not be able to certify the CSPR unless the data are corrected.

The purpose of these edit checks is to flag potential data quality issues to the data entry person prior to data submission and certification.


November 2010 31

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. www.ed.gov

online submission tool frequently asked questions (faqs) (pdf)

Documents