IMS Data Entry Personnel Meeting Notes – April 5, 2011, 10:00 A.M.12:00 P.M.





1.  Site Equipment Check

2.  Required Data Report Required.

a.       E-mail Michelle sent regarding the Required Data Report and EC Codes on January 20, 2011  

       3.  E-mail Changes

       4.  Networking and Sharing



1.       CRI Change Code

2.       Follow-up to Survey



Site Equipment Check



The sites checked in.

Required Data Report


Michelle presented information  on the Required Data Report including:

·         Correction Guidelines

·         Correction Specifics. 

To access the PowerPoint file, see link on prior page.


Summary of presentation:

·          On a regular basis, run the Required Data report and keep up with the corrections.  For some, on a regular basis may mean daily. 

1.       There will be fewer corrections to make than if they are left uncorrected for awhile.

2.       The data entered the day before will be easier to recall or revisit than waiting.

·          Some corrections are missing the initials of the person who made the correction and/or the date of the correction.  Some corrections aren’t current.  Please research those items.

·          When researching corrections, follow your AEA’s procedures on how to obtain answers.

·          Know the codes and their differences, when applicable.  For example, it is important to understand the differences between change codes and exit codes as the report is being worked on.

·          If something doesn’t make sense, ask colleagues, John or the Center.  As the question is being answered, this will also help all of us to increase our knowledge and understanding of the data and system.


Michelle led an activity where participants were asked how they would go about correcting specific examples.  Images were provided so the participants had additional details about each example.  


Michelle thanked Lisa Lohman who provided feedback on both the presentation and the activity.


Note:  In the Count Comments field, AEA 10 requested that data entry personnel also include the AEA (formatted as A10) in addition to the date and the initials.  This helps them figure out who wrote the notes, especially if the notes were written quite awhile ago by another AEA.


Post-Meeting Note:  If a student appears on the Required Data report for a reason of (Change Code) Follow up needed and does not resurface, John Lee provided the following information:

·         If the student still appears in the list in 30 days, do some additional research.  For example:

1.       Is the student in the IMS system and under another name?

2.       Is the student in general education in a district and not in special education?

3.       Have the student’s records been requested?

·         If the student hasn’t resurfaced in 45 days, and no evidence has been found which would indicate that a different Exit reason should be used, use UNK (Unknown). 

·         If the student resurfaces after the code has been changed to UNK, then it is possible to change the UNK to an appropriate Change Reason.


Question:  How can I get rid of an old comment?

Answer:  Delete all the text and replace it with a ‘.’ and save.


Question:  Which code should be used, CPI or CPN when a student is pulled from school to home school, but comes to school for a service. 

Answer:  Since this student comes to school they would still be rostered for that service in school.  Use the code CPI.


Question:  If a service is carried over to the next school year, does this service need to be closed and reopened?

Answer:  If the attending and resident districts are still the same, do not close.  The enrollment calendar will account for school year dates.


Michelle also reviewed information about the EC codes and referenced an e-mail that was sent in January.   Here is a reprint of that email:


From: Michelle Tressel []
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:03 PM
To: ''
Cc: 'Gethmann, Dee [ED]'; 'Lee, John [ED]'
Subject: FW: Required Data Report and EC Codes


Hi Everyone,

The Required Data report has been updated now so it looks at the new EC Setting Codes.  When you run the Required Data report for your AEA, you will notice a number of records in the report which pertain to the Early Childhood Setting codes. Therefore, please note the following:

·         If the correction code is “EC Code Blank” AND the child listed will turn 6 before the next Special Education Enrollment Count (October 28, 2011), you can ignore that record.  By the time of the next Count, each child who is in this category should have an LRE rather than an EC Setting Code and will not appear in this list.  I know that it is not ideal to have to “weed” through these records to get to the data that truly need to be corrected.  However, we will not tweak the report, at least now, to eliminate these records from this report as it is identifying the records it is supposed to report:  records without a new EC code.


·         If “EC Code Invalid” appears in the Corrections column, that record will need to be corrected.  For example, if the code A was entered rather than A1, that child’s name will appear in the Required Data report. 


In short, when you are looking at the Required Data report, only disregard records with “EC Code Blank”.  Follow the established procedures for all other corrections.


If you have any questions about the Required Data report, please feel free to contact me or John Lee.




In summary, only disregard records with “EC Code Blank”.  Otherwise, follow established procedures to correct.



E-Mail Changes


Michelle indicated Myka Petersen will be the programmer who will develop the e-mail feature in the new system.  Myka would like input from data entry personnel regarding this feature.  She also will be asking for volunteers to test this piece of the application in the future.


Michelle led a discussion of the current capabilities in regard to the system sending e-mails when a change is made in IMS.

Participants were asked the following three questions.  Their responses are also included:

·          What capabilities/features do you really like in the current system?

Ø       Already addressed to whom it needs to go

Ø       Student name, DOB, attending – everything already there

·          What capabilities/features do you wish would be removed?

Ø       None

·          What capabilities do you wish would be added?

Ø       Be able to click on e-mail, or it pops up, no way to by-pass

Ø       Difference between IEP & IFSP data entry persons

Ø       Add resident building

Ø       Send to new host district for FC & DCP

Ø       Make sure contacts/addressee is current

Ø       Add new attending district contact person

Ø       Contact list – organized by district

Ø       Search district and pull up person’s name (similar to web IEP banked)

Ø       Multiple persons for districts


Michelle summarized and added that every effort will be made to incorporate all of the ideas listed above into the new application.  However, there may be some that conflict with each other and those may not be able to be included.




Networking and Sharing


There are two items that I wish to clarify at this time in regard to the data verification of the enrollment reports:


1.       A question has been raised as to whether or not services that will carry over between school years need to be closed by the end of the school year in order to be reported corrected in the new Enrollment reports that will be used by LEAs.


Data entry personnel are to continue entering services as they currently have been doing.  This means that if the student will continue in the same (attending) district with the same resident district in the next school year, it is not necessary to close out that record and to enter it again with dates that correspond to the school year.  


The Enrollment Reports, in conjunction with the district or building calendars, will account for situations where a student’s services carry over between school years.


It will continue to be important to enter accurate service start and service end dates, especially when the weighting, resident or attending district changes.



2.       One AEA has reported that if the Service Begin equals the Service End Date there are some records that are correct.  Here is my advice in regard to that issue:


I’m not sure we can tweak the report much more as there will be some records with the same begin and end date that will not be correct.


If the data are correct, then I would advise the data person to make notes such as below and keep those handy.  (I believe that there was another project where we had the data entry personnel do the same thing.)  Then, when the report is run again, she will be able to refer to the notes and not have to do the research again.







1.   CRI Change Code

We need to make sure that whenever a student’s weighting changes, the current instructional record needs to be closed out with a CRI and then a new record added with the new weighting.  The Service Start and Service End dates are also important so that the end of the year reports the LEAs submit to the DE are accurate.


2.   Follow-up to Survey

Thanks to those of you who answered the survey during the month of March about your current practice related to data entry of services.  The differences in data entry became noticeable as the Center was trying to develop some outputs for the DE and Iowa Braille and Sightsaving School. The results of the survey are posted along with this agenda.


The Operations Work Group, the operational arm of the OGC, discussed the survey and the current practices at their March 24 meeting.  Here is a summary of their discussion:

·          Data Entry of Attending Building for Non-Public Schools

o        In the application that is being rewritten, every service will have a delivery building – the building where the child receives the service. This will eliminate the problem.

o        Between now and July 2013, AEAs will not be asked to change how they are entering non-public school data. 

o        It should be noted that attending district and building are not used to determine which districts receiving funding from Child Count.

·          Services

o         There is a difference between a service that is known or that will be delivered, although infrequently, and one that is just available.  It is possible that consumers are using “Upon Request” for both situations.

o         Two DE staff will develop some clarifying documentation. 

o         At the April 28 Operations Work Group meeting, there will be further discussion about that clarifying documentation as well as how to proceed with the data entry personnel.

o         Further information on the discussion held at the Operations Work Group meeting is available via the meeting notes posted at; Section: Governance; Subsection: Meeting Notes or Minutes.



Preview of Future Business


Next meeting will be Tuesday, May 3rd, 10:00 – 12:00

Topics:  TBD