Lights, mics, action…one more time! We return to Charlotte, North Carolina, for IDC's Interactive Institute 2023, where we grabbed some quality time with OSEP's Gregg Corr, Christine Pilgrim, and Richelle Davis to discuss how states can interact, influence, and improve their way to higher quality IDEA data. Join host Amy Bitterman and our very first studio audience for a lively episode of A Date with Data.
Reach out to us if you want to access Podcast resources, submit questions related to episodes, or share ideas for future topics. We’d love to hear from you!
You can contact us via the Podcast page on the IDC website at https://ideadata.org/
### Episode Transcript ###
00:00:01.52 >> You're listening to "A Date with Data" with your host, Amy Bitterman.
00:00:07.34 >> Hey, it's Amy, and I'm so excited to be hosting "A Date with Data." I'll be chatting with state and district special education staff who, just like you, are dealing with IDEA data every day.
00:00:19.50 >> "A Date with Data" is brought to you by the IDEA Data Center.
00:00:24.93 >> Thank you all for listening to part two of our special live episode of "A Date with Data" with OSEP at IDC's ii23. Please check out episode 28 if you missed part one, and thank you for listening.
00:00:39.01 >> Sounds like data use, I'm hearing a lot of that, which is definitely something I've heard from talking to states and through the podcast, and I think it's just exciting that we're sort of ... been able to ... There's still obviously data quality issues that states and OSEP is grappling with, but it's just exciting that we're starting to now see kind of the light at the end of the tunnel almost and feeling like we're in a place where we really can start to use and push our data out. And that's definitely a trend that I've been seeing, and I do want to ask you all about kind of the trends that you're seeing in terms of the SPP/APR, kind of digging in a little bit with some of those indicators. There was a lot going on with clarification this year with a number of indicators, and I think Christine will maybe shed some light and talk a little bit about that process.
00:01:29.07 >> Sure. So I'll start with 8 and 14, and I'll have to look at my notes because we see lots of things, and I don't want to fail to mention something when we have the opportunity to sit up here in these comfortable white chairs. But I would say for Indicators 8 and 14, generally we are seeing states ... And you're saddling in to the information collection, aren't you? This is the second year. We had some enhanced requirements, and you're saddling in to what you have to give us, but I think generally folks are doing a better job of describing the strategies that they're going to use to increase response rates, especially for those underrepresented groups. The underrepresented groups part, that specifically underrepresented groups is a place where, first go-round, everyone may have not attended to that in the same way, may generally talk about strategies but not focusing in on those underrepresented groups, and obviously that's very connected to the executive order on equity. So we are paying attention to that, but states are generally doing a better job there. Through our work with OCDO, which is the Office of the Chief Data Officer, we recognize that nonresponse bias is a complex concept, and you would be surprised at how much work we've been trying to do internally just to get better at understanding what it is and also leaning on our TA providers. So I think this is a place where we know that it's going to need some work.
00:02:51.86 It's going to mean that we're going to need to connect with our TA centers, and just moving forward, we also have to think about how we're going to strengthen data in this area to make sure that we're asking the right questions. Because when we go back now and we look at, let's say, the instructions in the measurement table, or all the things that were put there a few years ago, is this going to get at what we're really trying to get at and what the intent is? And it's through submissions we're seeing, well, did we miss the mark a little bit? Should we be asking different questions? How are we going to get at the intent which is making sure that, ultimately, this is about making sure that your families for 8 ... and then obviously 14 is looking at what kids are doing after school, but especially for 8, the families you don't hear from, how do you know what their stories are? How do you know how they feel? How do you know what they think? And just really getting at those voices that may be silent and not present and bringing them to the fore, and that's ultimately the essence of it but through some pretty complex processes. But we recognize nonresponse bias as a place we have to do some more work, have some greater understanding and continue to connect. I think with Indicator 17, what we're seeing is states, over the years, have made some considerable changes as it relates to infrastructure.
00:04:07.48 I think a place where we see opportunities is around implementing evidence-based practices beyond just sort of this very small group. I don't know. What are we, 7 years in, 8 years into the SSIP now? So thinking about how you can scale some of those practices ... I recognize things have happened in states, hashtag COVID and other things, but just sort of how we start to look at that scaling. The other thing is measuring implementation, so that's another place where we see lots of opportunities to support states in that place, but I think generally folks are trying to pick back up after COVID. There's some states that have changed their SIMR, certainly North Carolina talked about that yesterday, but I don't want y'all to think that we've forgotten the SSIP in all of the other bustle of activity. We are still reading your submissions and thinking about how to best support you because a lot of you are doing tremendous work in that space.
00:05:05.78 All right. I left Indicator 4 for last because I recognize it might have been a pain point during clarification for you guys, but I think I told you during that call that this was a great opportunity as ... that the administration has a focus on discipline and exclusionary practices and put out guidance last year. The guidance referenced our expectation that states have a reasonable methodology, and that now this year we flagged we're going to have to start looking at the reasonableness of methodologies. And through initial submissions we recognized that there were places where we didn't have enough information to be able to understand the system fully, so we asked for some more information. There were places there ... And I flagged this during the national TA call, but I'll say it again here. I know that for many of you, especially as you ... some of you are new. Many of you are new. It might be a cut-and-paste process year-to-year, and you've provided language to us that was generally the same, and here OSEP came, in the year of the universe 2023, with this laser focus on this indicator and is now saying, "Mmm, we're not sure about this.
00:06:18.56 I know you told us this for the past 9 years, but we're not really sure that this is consistent, et cetera." And I know that that probably caused a lot of discomfort, but I would say that I was truly moved by the conversations that happened during clarification and the responses we got post-clarification because generally, across the board, states were able to explain. Many cases y'all were doing it, but it just wasn't coming out in the words on the page that they were able to provide the information we asked for and give us a much better picture of what was happening and clarify things where we, at first, were like, "Well, we're not even sure if this is right," so pat yourselves on the back for that. Might have been a pain point, but it is an opportunity, and you guys did a lot to be able to clarify some things for us. Moving forward, I know all of you want to know what we're going to be doing with all of this, and I'm not going to answer that question fully here, but I will say that we strive to continue to understand your methodology fully and have a good picture of what's happening in a state. I'll stop there for now. Thanks.
00:07:30.81 >> Okay, just have to make sure I'm asking the right questions, and maybe we'll get a little more out of Christine. I'll work on it.
00:07:39.06 >> No pressure, Amy. It's got to be the right question.
00:07:41.26 >> I know. I know.
00:07:41.54 >> Oh, wait, I will say this. I will say this.
00:07:43.11 >> Okay, cool.
00:07:43.46 >> I will say this.
00:07:43.96 >> That already worked.
00:07:44.42 >> All y'all know me already. You know I'll ... I'm like a ... shiny things. I will say two things. One is, yes, we recognize that these data for Indicator 4 are lag data, and they were therefore impacted by COVID. So I do recognize that when we have questions, when no LEAs were meeting your end size, all these other things. I don't want you to bash me over the head, "Well, Christine, it was COVID. Kids were at home. We didn't suspend our" ... We got it. I know that. I know that. I know that. You know that. We know that, but we still have to flag for you things we might be looking at moving forward, so just take that in the spirit of that. The other thing I will say is the whole issue about a threshold and the median. I know a lot of you data managers are going to try to hold me hostage about that at some point in time. Mary Corey is looking straight in my face. I'm going to say this. I'm going to say this. Any time we make a decision ... And I've had this conversation with many of you in different places. If OSEP has to make a decision about reasonableness of anything, either we have to have a bright-line standard where we are going to say, "This is it.
00:08:58.59 You can't cross this line," or we have to look at what all states are doing and then figure out, "Okay, who are outliers? And let's deal with that." If you have a third way that we have not thought of, come and tell me, but ultimately that's ... Those are sort of the buckets we have to deal with when we think about reasonableness. So I know that whole thing, media, whatever y'all are about to jack me up for, but nonetheless, know that we have to operate in two spaces. Either it's a bright-line standard, or we're looking at everybody and figuring out who the outliers are, so just know that. So take what we say within that spirit, but I'm pleased with the work that has happened not only internally, in terms of our analysis, but how the kinds of conversations I heard through clarification. There's some of you that brought back up PowerPoints from 2010. Luckily, we were still saying the same thing. There are those of you that have IDC's Resource dog-eared at your desk. I have folks on my staff who do, and honestly their resources can answer just about any of the questions, so I'm pleased that we're being consistent over a decade in time, and I'm also grateful for IDC for all of the work that they have done in this space because they can continue to support. So don't be afraid of Indicator 4 and what's going to happen. It's really ...
00:10:15.57 It's an opportunity, and ultimately it's about what's happening with kids in that space, and that's what we're all here for so ...
00:10:21.97 >> Yeah.
00:10:22.80 >> You're not going to get me to say anything else. That's it.
00:10:24.15 >> Okay. Okay. I will move off from ... The spotlight is no longer on Christine for a few minutes. Richelle, what about 618 data? Any trends, things of note that have been happening over the last few years that you want to ...
00:10:38.02 >> Yeah, we can come up with a few things. I think the biggest thing is, is that we're seeing kind of the recovery out of COVID, right? So the data ... We're not seeing data quality issues that are likely from COVID. We're seeing, as you actually look at what the data are, they're starting to more reflect 2019 than they did 2020 or 2021, and so you can kind of see there was a blip, and now we're trying to come out of the blip. I think the big thing ... and Kristen kind of ... Christine? Kristen? Christine.
00:11:15.33 >> I can be Kristen.
00:11:15.95 >> We ... I can be anything that ends with an Elle, usually. But I think what we ... one of the things that she said ... she didn't ... You didn't actually say the words, but I know you meant it, incremental improvement, and I think we have seen that in all states for years and seeing how things incrementally improve. And I think knowing how much turnover there is in states, I think it's a really a testament to you and to our TA providers for the support they're able to do with data processes and just the general TA that's provided, to see what a consistent level of data quality there is. That's not to say that everything is perfect, and I know zeroes can be such a problem, or the lack thereof, and so everybody counts or nobody counts, but it's really interesting looking back over the years to see where we are. I won't say that the more people and the more technology that we get, the more data quality errors that we're going to find. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's kind of a good thing, right? Your data is going to get cleaner because you have the ability to go out there and find more errors. You may not like it from a data quality ... looking at your data quality rubric standpoint, but I think it's definitely good for the data quality.
00:12:45.56 So that's really it, and again, as I've said many, many times before over the years, you guys do a remarkable job of getting us really high quality data at the first time, so that's why I'm not as nervous about EDFacts modernization as some people are because I can go back and I can look at the history of the data quality that's been submit ... of the data that's been submitted and look at the quality of that and know that, yes, there are errors here and there. Yes, there are blips, but for the most part folks in this room, all of the states submit really high quality data on that very first submission. So I have faith in you all, so please don't prove me wrong.
00:13:30.45 >> All right. So now we're going to shift over again to Gregg, and we want to hear about DMS. And Differentiated Monitoring and Support is a big deal for all states, and I know with IDC, we've been doing a lot of work with states to make sure that their processes are documented so that they're in a good position and prepared for DMS and also helping states complete those protocols that are available for each of the framework components. So I'm wondering what other advice do you have for states that have upcoming visits or still are a few years out even, what they can start doing now to get ready?
00:14:09.22 >> Okay, thanks for that. Yeah, so DMS is one of our three big buckets along with SPP/APR and grant awards, and you may have noticed that attached to the conference application is a page with a number of linked items, and I checked, and it is there, each of which should help you with various aspects of DMS. So if you haven't, please check that out. A few tips and suggestions: We've been featuring DMS on our monthly TA calls for a couple of years now. Those calls have all been recorded and archived. So one of the links, if you click on there, will take you to all of the monthly TA calls. Not all of them are on DMS, but you'll be able to find the ones that are to go back and review that. I would urge you to review and begin populating the protocols that our teams use when they engage with a state. Those are all also linked, and it's a good way, even if your state is not part of Cohort 2 which was the upcoming cohort. Even if you're Cohort 4 or 5, it's not a bad thing to begin populating those protocols as a way to assess your own systems. Use the document review and request template to begin organizing and preparing your documents, and I think that's really critical for states that are going to be monitored in this coming year. It's a major task.
00:16:03.68 We recognize that it's a lot of effort on your part to provide all the documents that OSEP is requesting and organize those, so use the template to begin doing that. And please don't ignore our OSEP-funded TA centers who are a tremendous resource for all of you. Set up a time to meet with your designated TA provider, could be NCSI, IDC, Intact, Cipher or others, but they are all ready and prepared to help you with the process of getting ready for an OSEP DMS monitoring as well as helping you through the process. Lastly, we have provided a link to a presentation that was made during last year's OSEP Leadership Conference, so please take a look at that. I think there's both a video and a PowerPoint there that you might find helpful.
00:17:06.27 >> Great, thanks, and I'll just reiterate what Gregg mentioned. And in the conference app you'll find some resources, some of the ones that Gregg mentioned, so please definitely check those out. And one thing I think I started to see for sure as a result of DMS upcoming is just all the work that states are doing to start just making sure, is all the information available on our website? Even putting together new resources and technical assistance and just everything you're starting to do which is a great, I think, kind of consequence of having this, is all that great work you're doing to try to make sure you're set up for success. So I commend you all on that. I also did want to mention we did collect a few questions from you all yesterday, so thank you for sharing those, and we have ... We went through them and have been trying to make sure a lot of them have been incorporated already in the responses and questions we've asked, but one question, another hot topic back to Gregg has to do with determinations which is ... That is something else that is coming up soon and I know is forefront on everyone's minds. So what can you tell us, Gregg, about determinations?
00:18:14.25 >> We ... Probably not as much as people want to hear at the moment, but let me go ahead and get started. We did a lot of work in the past year to collect input from a variety of stakeholder groups to provide feedback about the current determinations to the extent that they are the correct way to analyze a state's performance across both compliance and results. We got a lot of terrific input. Also, there were a number of written submissions that we analyzed as well. We do listen to you because we think that there are some great ideas out there that we definitely want to avail ourselves of. So taking all that, we have made a few changes for this year, and we're looking at some ... probably more significant changes for FY 2024. Now, as a commercial, an advertisement, tomorrow at 4 o'clock, Christine will be leading a TA call on the 2023 determinations where she'll be able to share a little bit more information with you. If any of you are traveling at that time and not able to access the live call, that, like our other calls, will be recorded and archived, so you can look at it at a later time. Usually that takes a couple days, but by sometime next week you should have access to that call. Anything you want to say about that? No? Going to save it all for tomorrow, huh? All right.
00:19:55.90 >> I think you covered it well, yes. Little things right now, still looking at what happens beyond 2023, and we referenced that in last year's letters when we were saying, "We really want to focus on issues of equity," and gave some examples and looking at existing indicators or anything else we could do new. We flagged it was ... We were thinking about 2023 and beyond, so I think anything more substantive would be coming later, but there probably are a few of interest to you. Listen on Thursday, see what I say.
00:20:30.07 >> All right.
00:20:31.31 >> So stay tuned. I'm sure you'll have a large audience for that one, and one of the reasons really that we started this podcast originally is because we hear from states all the time that they really want to hear other states' stories and they want to know what resources you're using and what are your successes. What's working? So I did want to ask you all if you have any stories that you might want to share, successes where you've really seen states have improved the quality of their data? Christine, do you want to kick that off?
00:21:03.93 >> Sure. I think one that I use often because I was present for the bulk of it, and I remember it well, involves Mary Watson, who is sitting at the back of the room. Mary, this is an example from a state that you have worked with. A few years ago, I had a state ... I was their state lead at the time ... that they were losing points on the 618 portion of the data rubric, all zeroes in different places for different collections, and the state director at the time was not happy about how they were losing all of these points and brought together the data folks within the SEA and everyone in her office, et cetera, and worked with IDC around that data processes tool kit to really be able to map out just sort of the work that was happening and what needed to occur, and it was very evident there, as I think still tends to be the case. EDFacts coordinator didn't really have a good sense of how some of ... How does assessment data play out if I don't submit it on time, or if I don't respond to something? How does this actually affect a data rubric which is a score on the compliance matrix which is a part of determinations? And I think through that process ... and they were able to then ...
00:22:17.33 They were not losing points as much as years went on, once everyone was aware of how these submissions affected a rubric which affects a score on the compliance matrix which affects determinations, not necessarily in a big way, but there is an impact, of course. And through the work with IDC, I saw them change their data quality dramatically as a result of that work. And I believe so much in those data processes, that data processes tool kit. IDC has helped us internally think about how we document our processes and what we do so just to reinforce how incredible they are in that space, but I think Richelle is not worried about ED modernization, but it keep me up at night a little bit because I would say that this year ... So this isn't about to be a success, but we're going to make it a success, Amy, stay with me. I saw more states have issues with 618 submissions, specifically assessment data, and then it was sort of not recognizing until after the resubmission period, "Oh, shucks, our stuff was wrong." And that concerns me because ED modernization will not have a resubmission period, so all your stuff has to be right when you put it in. The assessment data is going to be coming in, in January next year.
00:23:38.27 It's a short turnaround time before it's in the APR submission, February 1, et cetera, but I'm not sure if everyone understands that we use the data as of that freeze date in determinations and to make decisions because those are the data that go through data quality reviews. So when a state recognizes a month after that period, "Oh, my gosh, we completely messed up these data," we are already using that in determinations, and that's ... That keeps me up at night, and while generally across the board you guys are doing a better job, I only need one state to make that mistake and I'm sweating. I'm like, "My world is about to upend," and, "What is this going to mean for determinations if we're using data as of the freeze date, and now the state is saying it is wrong?" So I really need for you guys to be very ... be thinking about what we can do to support you in ED modernization. So if there's something you need from us to make sure that you're able to give us data, and as of the date you give it to us, it is spectacular, and you can stand behind it.
00:24:40.26 Please tell me what that is because I feel like all y'all are my children, and I worry, and then if the data is wrong and we're using it, and now somebody needs intervention and because of ... I can't have that, so you tell me what y'all need to make sure that you're going to be right on target. Can y'all do that for me? Okay. That's what I need from you. Does it keep up Richelle? It keeps me up at night.
00:25:03.66 >> I sleep pretty well. Anyway, I just kind of wanted to reiterate off of that, we are working on trying to come up with some solutions and some ... Working with IDC to come up with some ideas on what we can do to support you so that you can really rest assured that the data ... that you're seeing things the way you mean to see them. And so as Christine just said, if you have ideas on what a resources would be, what it is that you need for us to be able to help you ensure that the data, particularly the data, the assessment data that are going into your SPPs and APRs are top-notch, ready-to-go, best-thing-you've every done before in your life. Please let us know because we have some ideas, but there are ideas, and it may not actually work for you. So if you have an idea, I think that would be super helpful. So thanks.
00:26:01.27 >> I was going to put a plug in for IDC's EDFacts data manager peer group, if you're not already part of it or don't ...
00:26:08.12 >> Man, that's on my notes for later.
00:26:09.68 >> Oh, I'm sorry.
00:26:10.30 >> That's okay.
00:26:10.89 >> I'm sorry, Richelle. I stole your thunder, but we'll say it twice. It's that important.
00:26:15.08 >> Okay.
00:26:15.81 >> So definitely check that out as well, and also to that end too, I think ... And IDC is always listening through our different peer groups, of course, and just the work we're doing for those success stories, and we'll definitely want to highlight in particular with EDFacts modernization if there are strategies that you're using in your approach, for those states that are getting it in and aren't thinking a month later, "Oh, no, there was a problem," and how you're really making that happen. We'll definitely want to highlight those and bring those to everyone's attention, so you can learn from each other. And any other success stories we want to ...
00:26:52.06 >> Well, I was going to talk about a data processes one, but you stole that, so I don't know. I'm at a loss, but, no, I ... just to go on, the data processes ... I don't know. Is everybody in here aware of the data processes tool kit and the working with IDC on that, any? Okay, yeah, people seem to be, so that's great, and if you haven't, I think that it's really important that you do it. I know we've had, like I said earlier, a lot of turnover in different states, and so my success story is not necessarily one story, but it's the stories where folks have moved on to greater things, and where someone has been able to step in and step up, and the data quality has maintained and/or improved, and so that is my one. So I'm just going to say it, and I just did so ...
00:27:42.18 >> Oh, sorry, sorry that I stole something that you wanted, Richelle.
00:27:45.06 >> That's okay. I'm okay with that.
00:27:46.48 >> But I will also say that any work I've seen in states that would count as a success story and them getting to a much better place with data quality has always involved their TA centers. So if you are a state who is not accessing your OSEP-funded TA center, you are not setting yourself up for success, guys. So you need ... They need to be your BFF, your right hand. Don't have a call without them with OSEP. Have them there with you lock-and-step through every process because every story I can think of where I'm like, "Oh, yeah, they did a much better job. They did" ... always involves support from a TA provider so don't mess around and not have them involved.
00:28:30.36 >> What she said.
00:28:33.19 >> Well, thank you for that wonderful plug and, yes, there are many of us scattered about, and all of you know all of us so definitely just ... If there's any time you see us, just grab us, one of us, and just say, "I really need help with this." We are all happy to pitch in at any time with anything you need IDEA data-related. So along with those successes, of course, there are challenges, and we know there's challenges coming up with different changes that are in the works. Richelle, do you want to talk about some areas of challenges we see happening and ways that we can try to support states maybe with those?
00:29:14.14 >> Yeah, so again kind of hitting that same old record here. EDFacts modernization, I think, again, it's the big change. It's the big ... the big piece that's out there, and so I ... As I was working on my notes for this, I was like, "Wow, in order to be good at the new EDFacts modernization and getting everything into EDPass, it's really going to be all about that improved data culture," that you guys have spent the past couple days learning about because it's going to be about making sure that you have those strong relationships with your EDFacts/EDPass coordinator so that you ... everybody is on the same page and that nobody is hitting any buttons early. So that's really ... I want to make sure that that's the big one. We know that change is hard. You know that change is hard, and it's going to be hard for us at OSEP, and it's going to be hard for you in the states, but I have faith. The other big one is that we're all going to need a lot of patience. OSEP is going to need patience with the states. States are going to need patience with OSEP and with ED and with EDFacts, and so we're ... As I noted earlier, we're experiencing delays in getting EDPass open.
00:30:26.35 We don't anticipate that that will impact other due dates in the future, so continue as you've already planned as far as the other collections, but, yeah, we do know that right now child count is delayed, and I don't have a date for you. So if anybody has a follow-up question, I don't have it right now, but I will say to make sure that you're watching your emails for updates. The other thing that I wanted to point out because I don't know whether you realize this, but the system isn't going to run year-to-year checks this year, and so I would still really advocate for you to run the ones that you've built into your systems over the years for yourselves because, number one, we're going to do it again next year, so you might as well just be ready. But number two, I do think that those year-to-year checks, when we first invented them a long time ago, was to actually find the little fat-finger errors, where you hit the eight instead of the nine, or you hit the whatever instead of the whatever but ... So we would really suggest that you keep doing that. One area, another area that we're looking at for support ... I don't know whether you guys are aware, but we posted a notice of proposed priority a couple of year ... a couple of years ago?
00:31:44.25 A couple of months ago looking at a ... basically a significant disproportionality data center, and so within that proposed priority, there are several different questions that we had posed to the field, to you guys, to ask for your ideas around how we at OSEP can support you as far as a data center would go. And so if you can take a moment and work together ... I don't know whether SEDMAG is going to do a big response, but to go back in and look at that and then tell us what it is that you need. That way, we can make sure we're designing not what we think you need but what you actually need so ... And again, I was still going to plug the IDC's Peer Group. So make sure you get involved with those, especially with your EDFacts coordinator. You can just get them around the arm and walk them right up in there.
00:32:36.86 >> We have some more topical conversations with our peer groups coming up today too, so definitely check those out. Christine?
00:32:46.28 >> Just two things in terms of places where I think we have some opportunity. States might need a little support in this area, and we have an opportunity to do that in the discipline space. I would say when informal removals should be counted, as a disciplinary removal seems to be a fair amount of confusion and conversation around that, and we see that as a place where we ... where some support is needed but then also when a series of removals constitutes a pattern and then how that is reported in the 618 data. So I think as it relates to the discipline collection, those are two places where the more we're digging into Indicator 4, where it seems like there's lots of conversation or confusion, et cetera, so I would say that. And then for the SSIP, what's top of mind is the states having a true fidelity measure and a mechanism to collect those data and report those data to us would be a place where that's a ripe opportunity, to think about how we could support states in doing a better job there, but those are the ones that are front and center in my mind at the moment.
00:33:57.58 >> Great.
00:33:57.70 >> And kind of an overarching challenge that I think all of us face is just vacancies and staff turnover from the local level to the state to the federal. I actually just got a text that one of our people is leaving, but it continues. It continues to happen, and we recognize that the data that you get at the state level is only as good as the data that comes up from your LEAs, and it's a challenge. We recognize it's difficult. We also want to commend you for staying on top of that and doing the best that you can despite the challenges that are out there.
00:34:43.07 >> Okay. Oh, I'm getting a 1-minute, yes. So I don't want to end on challenges necessarily, but I think we heard a lot of great information and positives and exciting things to come. I don't know if anyone has any last words before we wrap up.
00:35:02.85 >> Well, I was supposed to answer a question on ... Let's see.
00:35:06.28 >> Oh, LRE? Do we want to ...
00:35:07.42 >> 619 data for LRE, and is there a consideration for no pre-K being compared to universal states? I don't see us doing that. There's nothing that could stop someone out in the world from writing an article, but it's not going ... At this point, for the next 3 years at least, I don't ... It's not a part of the collection. It would be really ... we would have to find a way to have that as a piece of the data collection, and that's not in the cards so ... But again, I just want to thank you guys for everything that you do as far as to support high quality data for kids with disabilities so ...
00:35:40.82 >> Great.
00:35:42.16 >> I ditto what Richelle said, but I would also just add I truly treasure you guys, as our accountability partners, and while I make jokes with you and say your name out on stage, I appreciate the questions you ask, the way that you push us sometimes in particular places if something we're saying or doing is not making sense, and it helps us get better, so continue to hold us accountable.
00:36:10.75 >> And I just want to thank Amy for moderating this chat. This was a new format, and I think it worked really well, and thank IDC for having us here. It's been a pleasure talking with you all.
00:36:21.85 >> Yeah, thank you all so much. We really appreciate this, and you can also listen to this again, if you like, because we will be putting it out on the podcast at some point. So thanks, everyone, have a good rest of the day.
00:36:38.57 >> To access podcast resources, submit questions related to today's episode or if you have ideas for future topics, we'd love to hear from you. The links are in the episode content, or connect with us via the podcast page on the IDC website at ideadata.org.