[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-504446-105":59,"doc-detail-504446-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","assessment-data-reporting-review-february-march-2017","Assessment Data Reporting Review - February-March 2017","","Assessment Data Reporting Review (February–March 2017) examines Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) processes and policy for data accountability and student assessment reporting for the 2015–2016 school year. The review covers interviews, regulation review, documentation evaluation, and comparisons with other states. It identifies missing ACT proficiency metadata and related governance and communication gaps, outlines integrity and business-process concerns, and provides recommendations across resolution policy, continuous improvement, roles, performance management, documentation, governance, and proactive accountability.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/assessment-data-reporting-review-february-march-2017/504446/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/assessment-data-reporting-review-february-march-2017/504446.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Dipper","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-17","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the purpose of the February–March 2017 OPI review?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The review evaluated OPI’s process and policy for data accountability and student assessment data reporting for the 2015–2016 school year, including related reporting systems and documentation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What key data element problem was identified for the ACT submissions?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A required proficiency rating scale element for the ACT was unavailable, and proficiency scores for 11th-grade students taking the ACT were not reported for assessment purposes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What recommendations did the report provide to improve governance and data management?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The report recommends actions covering data problem resolution policy, continuous quality improvement, clarification of cabinet roles, performance management and accountability, HR consultation, definition of Data Owners/Data Stewards responsibilities, governance structures, documentation, proactive management, and succession planning.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},504446,1791376082,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","March 20, 2017  \nMontana Office of Public Instruction:  \nPlease find attached a report regarding the process and policy review of data accountability and reporting, including student assessment data reporting for the 2015 – 2016 school year, at the Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) .  \nThe review involved interviews with experts within the OPI, review of relevant regulations, evaluation of documentation, and consideration of the practices of other states and relevant literature.  \nThe review indicates OPI classified * employees made a good faith effort to submit the EdFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS) Montana Assessment Metadata Survey [referred to herein as the “EdFacts Metadata Survey” or “metadata survey”] although a required data element (i.e., a proficiency rating scale for the ACT) was unavailable, and that they did not report proficiency scores for students taking the ACT for assessment purposes. Documentation shows OPI employees apprised Partner Support and the Department of Education of the deficiencies shortly before the data submission.  \nOPI’s December 14, 2016 EdFacts Metadata Survey submission indicated the ACT was the regular assessment for 11th grade for the 2015 – 2016 school year, and that the ACT had 4 proficiency levels, with level 3 and level 4 being proficient. Employees planned to correct the submission (i.e., indicate there were no proficiency levels) in a subsequent data submission window.  \nOPI classified employees initially reported that they hard-coded the proficiency level for ACT participants as level 3,“proficient” in the December 15, 2016 submission of the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) . Upon the reopening of the CSPR on February 20th, 2016, review of the data indicated this was not the case. Employees then recalled they were able to submit CSPR without reporting proficiency levels for ACT participants.  \nOPI classified employees originally understood they could not submit the CSPR without entering proficiency level data for 11th grade students who took the ACT for assessment (they thought failure to submit proficiency scores for participants would cause an error in the report) . With this understanding, and at the direction of classified managers within OPI, they generated a file  \nhard coding the students at proficiency level 3,“proficient,” as a placeholder. Employees then found that the files without the ACT data did not cause fatal errors in the CSPR even though proficiency data was not included, so did not submit the file with the level 3 proficiency.  \nThe OPI reported that 11th grade students who took the ACT were participants, but did not report proficiency levels for them. Rather, the agency reported only data for 99 students who took the Multi-State Alternative Assessment (MSAA) test and for 134 students from nine high schools who took the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) test. Internal experts at OPI indicate submitting data for the SBAC was incorrect as the ACT, not the SBAC, was the test used for accountability purposes for the 2015 – 2016 school year, and that submitting data for the MSAA was correct as that was the alternative assessment for that school year.  \nInterviews with OPI staff and review of documentation indicate the data elements required for a complete submission (i.e., valid proficiency levels for the ACT and proficiency level scores for 11th graders taking the ACT) were unavailable because the OPI failed to engage in standardssetting to establish proficiency levels and cut scores for the ACT that align with Montana educational standards. The review indicates OPI could have been more proactive in addressing the issue further in advance of the federal deadline. The OPI can address these problems and improve governance by improving communication, establishing policy and procedure, improving internal accountability and management systems, and fostering a proactive culture.  \nDuring the course of the review, OPI staff members ","cbCaibiVjP1WqDI4","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibiVjP1WqDI4","pdf",1024804,58,"English","# Introduction\n## Review scope and methodology\n## EdFacts Metadata Survey findings (2015–2016)\n## Consolidated State Performance Report issues (2016)\n## Data integrity, governance, and accountability concerns\n## Summary recommendations\n## Amended report context and next steps","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of the February–March 2017 OPI review?\",\"answer\":\"The review evaluated OPI’s process and policy for data accountability and student assessment data reporting for the 2015–2016 school year, including related reporting systems and documentation.\"},{\"question\":\"What key data element problem was identified for the ACT submissions?\",\"answer\":\"A required proficiency rating scale element for the ACT was unavailable, and proficiency scores for 11th-grade students taking the ACT were not reported for assessment purposes.\"},{\"question\":\"What recommendations did the report provide to improve governance and data management?\",\"answer\":\"The report recommends actions covering data problem resolution policy, continuous quality improvement, clarification of cabinet roles, performance management and accountability, HR consultation, definition of Data Owners/Data Stewards responsibilities, governance structures, documentation, proactive management, and succession planning.\"}]","Assessment Data Reporting Review - February-March 2017 | PDF",1791067497,146]