A B C D E F
1 Nevada P-16 Advisory Council
2 SLDS Governance Research
4 State Governance Body Composition Authority & Responsibilities Status Comparable
List the governance body (intra-education agency or cross agency or list both if they List the membership of each governance body. Who leads the body? List the duties defined in the statute, etc. Is the authority binding, e.g. can they enforce Where is this state in the process, e.g. how many DQC steps have they completed, do they have data linkage Based on your status, please note whether
have it) and the authority under which it operates (statute, executive order, MOU). compliance? Can they mandate the data sets? Can they mandate systems? yet, are they able to use data in a meaningful way? you think this state provides an adequate
Insert a hyperlink to the authority. comparison for NV to consider in its planning.
For instance, we have heard at our meetings
that FL (though DQC says they don't have
cross agency governance!) is too far advanced
5 in its linkage process to be a good comparison
Arizona In 2010, the Arizona Legislature approved HB 2377, creating the Arizona Education and Of the 13 members, seven are appointed by virtue of the position that they hold and the Statute charges the commission to “identify, examine and evaluate the needs of public We are in the early stages of discovery, development and implementation. To ensure that Arizona does not Arizona is not much ahead pf is om data, but
Learning Accountability System (AELAS). AELAS is charged with: 1) Maintaining remainder are appointed by the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House institutions who provide instruction to pupils in preschool, kindergarten, grades one create a system which will not serve the needs of its wide variety of constituents and stakeholders, the they have a solid governance structure in
longitudinal, student level data, including student demographic, grade level, assessment, of Representatives. The membership is as follows: The chief technology managers of each of through twelve and postsecondary programs in Arizona,” and directs it to: 1) Establish Arizona Department of Education is taking a systematic and pragmatic approach to development and place.
teacher assignment and other data required to meet state and federal reporting the universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents; The chief technology guidelines related to managed data access; technology; privacy and security; adequacy implementation. We must understand what is currently in use and available in districts and schools and
requirements; 2) Incorporate the student accountability information system prescribed manager of a community college district located in a county with a population of 800,000 of training; adequacy of data model implementation; prioritization of funding understand associated costs. We must understand our own internal systems and applications so that we are
in chapter 9, article 8 of this title; and 3) Be accessible through commonly used internet persons or more who has expertise in technology and who is appointed by the Governor; The opportunities; and resolution of data conflicts; 2) Provide recommendations on not developing and implementing technology solutions on outdated or insufficient infrastructure. We must
web browsers to carry out the data collection, compilation and reporting duties chief technology manager of a community college district located in a county with a population technology spending; and 3) Provide analyses and recommendations of the following: understand what vendors can provide based on our requirements. All of these initiatives are assisting us to
prescribed in this title. The Data Governance Commission (DGC) is a statutorily-created of less than 800,000 persons who has expertise in technology and who is appointed by the The control of data confidentiality and data security for stored data and data in build a business case which will aid in securing funding and as well act as the foundation for a RFP which will
commission established to identify the needs of public educational institutions, provide governor; The chief executive officer of the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health transmission; Access privileges and access management; Data audit management, then be made available to vendors for their expertise submittal.
recommendations and establish guidelines for future technology implementation. In Board; An officer or employee of a school district located in a county with a population of including data quality metrics, sanctions and incentives for data quality improvement;
accordance with statutory guidelines, the Commission is a 13 member body who 800,000 persons or more who has expertise in technology and who is appointed by the Data standards for stored data and data in transmission, including rules for definition,
represent various aspects of expertise in the areas of administration, information Governor; An officer or employee of a school district located in a county with a population of format, source, provenance, element level and contextual integrity; Documentation
technology and business. The DGC was created by Laws 2010, Ch. 334, § 1 (now Arizona less than 800,000 persons who has expertise in technology and who is appointed by the standards for data elements and systems components; Data archival and retrieval
Revised Statutes 15-249.01) to act as a guide in approving technology spending and to governor; An officer or employee of a charter school located in a county with a population of management systems, including change control and change tracking; Publication of
act as a resource on a number of other issues ranging from privacy and security to 800,000 persons or more who has expertise in technology and who is appointed by the standard and ad hoc reports for state and local level use on student achievement; and
resolution of data conflicts. The DGC is established within the Arizona Department of President of the Senate; An officer or employee of a charter school located in a county with a Publication of implementation timelines and progress. The vision of Education
Education (ADE) which works on behalf of the DGC to support its statutory mandate and population of less than 800,000 persons who has expertise in technology and who is appointed Intelligence (EI) is broad. By taking a phased approach, we can comfortably estimate
to further its goal of responsible technological innovation in the educational community. by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; Two representatives of the business anywhere between $5 - $10 million per year between FY12 – FY14. Based on what the
The DGC holds monthly meetings with various members of the Arizona Department of community, one of whom is appointed by the President of the Senate and one of whom is state is currently investing, we expect payback within two-three years.
Education including the CIO and other senior members of staff to understand progress, appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives; and The Superintendent of Public
recommend programs and budgets, and provide expert advice on various initiatives. Instruction.
Arkansas Right now we are working with various MOUs and a council but they are not providing Legislatively mandates the longitudinal tracking and trend data collections as We have implemented the system. We are fairly good at going back to H.S. graduates of 2007 and college No.
much governance. We do not have the ability to mandate software. We plan to established by the State Board of Education for purposes of improving student graduates for the last six years. We started a K-12 student and financial system in our schools about 15 years
strengthen that in the future. achievement. Has in place a operational statewide database for all schools and all ago. That is where we get a lot of the K-12 data. We have had three SLD grants from IES during the past six
http://www.adhe.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/AHEC%20Board/Presentations/jpTaskF students that permits it to track student performance over time and across schools and years totaling about 16 million.
orceReport-LATESTVERSION.pdf districts. Has unique student and teacher identifiers. Central storage at U of Arkansas.
Near perfect matching by data management firm Triand of Austin, TX.
California Currently operating under an Interagency agreement. Governor Brown has reservations about establishing a permanent new data system or a permanent No.
governance council. The Dept. of Education meets regularly with higher education to keep moving the
discussion forward and how they can share data without a permanent data solution. CA was moving toward a
Joint Power Agreement via SB 855, but that bill was shelved at the request of the Governor.
Connecticut Currently have a P-20 Council that is advisory only, established by executive order. The Current P-16 Council will be advisory but includes equivalent of State Superintendent of Public Not yet decided. Have a disjointed system that connects P-12 only at this point, still in the process of being built out. Working No.
group has been policy oriented. They are working on a "legislative executive order" Instruction and Chancellor of Board of Regents, who will take the guidance from P-20 back to on connections to higher education and labor but so far just the policy pieces. They have been appropriate
which will reconfigure the P-20 Council to take on the SLDS governance role but it will their agencies and implement same. $6.7 million since 2006, but so far have spent only about half as they have been policy and conceptually
remain advisory. They imagine the P-20 Council will be less global policy oriented and oriented and haven't accomplished much data development.
more specific on SLDS governance.
Delaware Yes – please see the attached P-20 Data Governance Handbook, which was a partial HB 213 passed June 30, 2011. This legislation, as mentioned above, delegated specific Legislation specified gave responsibility for interagency data governance to the Delaware had a pilot project for a few years that linked K-12 and higher education data. It was carried out by Possible.
implementation of legislation that passed on June 30, 2011. The development of the responsibilities to the existing Delaware P-20 Council around data governance and the Delaware P-20 Council and the P-20 Data Governance Handbook, approved by the P-20 a committee established by the Delaware P-20 Council. Data was collected and stored by the Delaware
Data Governance handbook included technical assistance from the US Department of Ed development and oversight of interagency data research. Council on January 10, 2012, fleshed out the general policies and procedures that will Department of Education. The data collected resulted in reports focusing on the enrollment of public school
SLDS State Support Team (e.g. a template for the Data Governance Handbook) http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/vwlegislation/74770EB427CB9E03852578B6005A4B6 guide the Council’s administration of those responsibilities. Embedded in the Race to graduates in state institutions of higher education and rates of first year retention. Concerns mounted over
E the Top grant proposal was approximately $6,000,000 to develop Delaware’s SLDS. data governance issues and the P-20 Council was forced to focus on those issues in order for the data linkages
Delaware was not awarded, to date, and separate SLDS grant, funding for that initiative to continue. Legislation (HB 213) was drafted and passed to both expand the P-20 Council as well as enable to
was incorporated into the RTTT amount. I have put in a request for an estimate of any more efficient sharing and access of data for interagency approved research studies. The P-20 Council
additional funding that has been used in the SLDS development and will get back to you through its data handbook is developing a defined process for research agenda development and oversight of
with that information, however I did not want to delay the rest of the responses to your the work being done. Currently regulations are being reviewed to accommodate these necessary changes to
questions for that additional piece of information. data governance.
District of Columbia No response
A B C D E F
Georgia Yes we do. The overall governance is our Alliance of Education Heads (Post secondary, What are the specific duties and authorities of the SLDS governance structure? Provide Just working on one now, expect to have the first phase completed by this fall. However, this is a research Possible.
K12, early childhood, teacher certification, student finance and governors office of overall direction and operation of the P20. Specific responsibilities for daily running of P20, not an operatioal one so it will not have PPI data on students. The estimated cost of our system is $5
student achievements). You can find these on the K12 website (gadoe.org) the P20 belong to the governors office of student achievement. We have the ability to million. Georgia’s Longitudinal Data System:
mandate data and software from participants. •Contains all 12 America COMPETES Act elements
•One of 11 states with all ten Data Quality Counts (DQC) elements implemented
•First state to comprehensively study and publish data on postsecondary enrollment
•One of five states participating in Gates Foundation-funded pilot to enhance our ability to track students
once they move on to postsecondary institutions
•One of five states participating in the Gates-funded Teacher-Student Data Link Project to develop a
common, best practice definition for teacher of record in order to validly link student-level data to teachers.
Through RT3 improvements to Georgia’s longitudinal data system, teachers and leaders will be able to use
real-time student-level performance data to inform and improve instruction for students.
Hawaii Through legislative resolution, the Hawaii P-20 Council has been tasked with overseeing The structure includes and P20 LDS executive committee, a steering committee, plus three No. However, we have a legislative act that supports cross-agency data sharing and a Hawaii has a K12 LDS in operation and has implemented an interim solution using the CalPASS model to allow No.
the development of a statewide P20 LDS. For more information, please visit functional committees: 1) data quality, assurance and validation; 2) cross agency research, and data sharing MOU between the 5 main agencies (Department of Education, University P20 analyses and reporting. We are in the process of procuring our long-term solution.
http://www.p20hawaii.org/ 3) system security and access. of Hawaii, Department of Labor Industry Relations, Department of Health, and
Department of Human Services). We are expecting the development and
implementation of the P20 LDS to cost approximately $5M.
Idaho Charter establishes governance committee. 3 reps from K-12 districts; 2 reps from state DoE; 2 reps from the Board of Education; 1 member State law has mandate for P-12. State Board has same authority can mandate to higher P-12 implemented and operational. University portion will be completed within the next 4 months. Will Possible.
of the Board's voting committee; 1 rep for a minimum of 4 higher educ institutions. Dept of education but just info level not data level elements. Can not mandate hardware or charter the governance group in the next few months. Presently there is no link for workforce or career/tech.
Labor rep and career/tech rep. Committee elects the chairman. software. Link to the data elements that the P-12 system is collecting can be found at Cost for P-12 system $7 million. Higher ed piece $2.5 million estimated.
Illinois In Illinois we have formed several governance bodies. At the SEA level for our SLDS The Illinois State Board of Education has implemented systems to collect early learning data At present the P-20 Council and the ILDS DAC serve in advisory roles. From the SEA K- We do have a district led initiative to help implement a resource and cost share model that is based on cloud Possible.
(ILDS) project we have formed the ILDS Data Advisory Committee (DAC). Serving in an and K-12 data, including the data needed to establish student teacher links. The Illinois 12 perspective Illinois is a local control state, at present we have 869 public school computing. Information on this initiative, termed the Illini Cloud, can be found at the following link:
advisory role to the SEA, the DAC is comprised of 17 different education related Community College Board (ICCB) has implemented a robust data collection of students districts. The selection of software and hardware that is used is the district’s choice. http://www.illinicloud.org/. Using a combination of state funding (in particular we are able to provide some
organizations covering the spectrum of education from early learning through attending 2 year institutions. The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) is in the process of Some districts have developed very sophisticated data systems and practices, while ARRA funding from the state SEA perspective) and district funding they are in the midst of an initiative to build
postsecondary and also includes workforce representation. Information on the DAC can building data collection capacity for four year institutions, and we have formed the Illinois other districts rely on manual systems to collect and submit data to the SEA. At the SEA a district data warehouse, have developed cost share models for access to software, and are working to help
be found at the following sites: http://www.isbe.net/ILDS/htmls/ildsdac.htm; Higher Education Consortium (IHEC) that represents four year institutions that will voluntarily our data collection is driven by state and federal reporting requirements. districts increase their capabilities by utilizing cloud technologies. It is anticipated that as many as 400
http://www.isbe.net/ILDS/default.htm. In addition, we have also formed through the contribute data. IHEC currently has more than 60 public, private and proprietary institutions as districts will be involved in this initiative within the next year. Illinois currently has two SLDS grants, one for
governor’s office a P-20 Council, which serves in an advisory role for the ILDS initiative. members and is targeting to start collecting data in 2012. In Illinois if postsecondary $8.9M and a second ARRA SLDS grant for $11.9M. It is important to note that these grants address
Information on the Council can be found at the following link: institutions do not contribute voluntarily then IBHE can collect the data by legislative mandate. considerable investment in infrastructure and data collection systems, as the building of a data warehouse for
http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/P20/Pages/default.aspx. The P-20 council is sited in our Through our postsecondary data collection we are also able to do some linking to workforce longitudinal data is only one part of the overall ILDS project space. As an estimate, we will spend
P-20 Legislative Act. We are in the process of forming an additional governance data, although work remains in this area to be able to fully link with workforce. We are also approximately $2.5M on the design and construction of the warehouse, and $800K on hardware to increase
structure that will serve as a governance body for the data owning entities that make up looking at linking our data with state human services agencies, with this in the formulation our data storage capacity. Our SLDS grants include rewrites or extensions of several data collection systems,
our ILDS. As we define this body we may also seek to streamline the above advisory stages. At present we have a distributed data model, with each of the primary data owning funding of a number of resources serving as data stewards and developers, and funding is also provided to
groups, although the DAC and the P-20 Council do have some different members, and agencies housing their data and contributing data as needed for various usage scenarios. For postsecondary (ICCB, IBHE, and ISAC) to build their capabilities to collect and store data. If you are solely
we want to make sure that all of our varied stakeholder groups are represented. example, Illinois published a High School to College Success Report where data from secondary looking to build a data warehouse, note that the CEDS initiative now includes data models and other
and postsecondary data was linked together and the report generated by our assessment implementation support materials that can help mitigate the cost and risk of building a longitudinal data
vendor ACT. repository. This material is free, and much of the CEDS discussion is centering on how to enable and support
greater collaboration amongst the states as they build their SLDS capacity. If you like, please feel free to
contact our ILDS project team to discuss this further. They can be reached at the following emails:
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Our ILDS project manager, Mike McKindles, can be reached at:
Indiana No response
Iowa The DE has been driving these groups. Depending on the group we have representation There is no legal authority in Iowa code. We do have multiple groups with delineated Iowa is in its 4th year of building its SLDS. No.
from a cross section (K12 LEAs, AEA regional offices, community college, etc) roles (Steering Committee, Advisory Committee, Data Governance). The DE invested
about $1.9 million of it’s own to get started. We received a SLDS IES grant for $8.7.
The funds are being used on several projects.
Kentucky Kentucky P-20 Data Collaborative Governance Group Multi-Agency Established Membership = agency heads from K-12, postsecondary, and teacher licensure. Chaired by The P-20 receives data pushed from the agencies at set intervals and is platform P-20 SLDS is functional with limited years, limited types of data. Currently working on: (1) report and analysis Yes. In particular, KY has found creative ways
by MOU Formalized by Executive Order All
Secretary for Education and Workforce Development. independent. All decisions are made unanimously by the governing group. development for use of the data, (2) expanding the data model to include additional years, and (3) expanding to leverage resources in order to build and
http://kentuckyp20.ky.gov/ agencies own their data and their infrastructures and are not hindered in their the data model to include additional types of data. Specific reports can be requested by filling out an online maintain its SLDS, some of which might work
decisions of what they do with them in any way by the P-20 Data Collaborative. form on the website. here.
A B C D E F
Maine Data Management Team Intra-agency (State Department of Education) but DMT includes reps from key department heads, and researchers and LEA representatives Each member of the DMT serves as data steward for his/her program area and ensures Currently moving away from agency hosted systems toward vendor or cloud hosted applications may be No.
researchers and representatives from LEAs attend the meetings. Established by attend the monthly meetings either live or via Adobe Connect. Since 2009, reps from the data dictionary is up to date. Governance is by committee, overseen by the based on service levels rather than on specific hardware.
grant application no website - projected completion of ARRA-funded activities is postsecondary, workforce and early childhood also attend the meetings. Commissioner of Education's Leadership Team which includes department policy
2013. directors. Can withold subsidy payments if agency doesn't provide data.
Maryland Maryland State Longitudinal Data System Center Governing Board multi-agency
Secretary of Higher Education; State Superintendent of Schools; Secretary of Labor, Licensing MLDS Center not operational yet. Once operational, "state agencies, postsecondary Not functional. No.
Established by statute no website - not operational yet but mandated to be and Regulation; Chancellor of the University System of Maryland; President of Morgan State institutions and local education agencies are to make every effort to comply with the
operational by 2014. University; governor-appointed representative of local superintendents of schools; executive requirements and implementation schedule as set forth by the governing board."
director of Maryland Association of Community Colleges; four governor-appointed members of
Massachusetts Department of Education collaborative with school districts. K-12 only. Department of Education K-12 LEAs provide data to State Dept of Ed Not functionally P-20. No.
Michigan Center for Education Performance Information (not in Dept of Ed) it is its own state Agency Director "governs" the center. By statute, data is provided to the center by K-12 LEAs provide data as mandated in statute. Higher ed can use the K-12 data No.
agency within the executive branch department of technology, management and budget agencies. Higher ed can upload to receive unique identifiers.
established as a temporary commission by executive order in 2000 then made into an
agency by statute http://www.michigan.gov/cepi
Minnesota Minnesota Statewide Longitudinal Education Data System co-governing agencies (MN SLEDS Governance Committee: MDE, OHE, Dept. of Employment and Economic Development, SLEDS Governance Committee is advisory to the MN P-20 Education Partnership and K-12 data is accessible. P-20+ SLEDS is still in development. Yes.
Dept of Ed and MN Office of Higher Ed) established by statute, remaining partners MN Association of School Administrators, MN School Boards Association, MN Association of appoints members to the Research Committee and Data Advisory Committee,
defined in data sharing agreements, MOUs and the charters developed by the MN P-20 Elementary School Principals, MN Association of Secondary School Principals, Education respectively, each of which are subcommittees of the SLEDS Governance Committee.
Education Partnership http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/mPg.cfm?pageID=1935&1534- Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Minnesota The SLEDS Governance Committee and its subcommittees operate under charters; each
D83A_1933715A Private College Council, Minnesota Career College Assocation, and an rep from the business includes its own defined membership representing key agencies and parties to
community. Two additional members at large may be appointed. necessary data sharing.
Mississippi Mississippi Integrated Longitudinal Education and Workforce Performance Management MOUs for data sharing are in place for the Mississippi Department of Education, Sate Board of Very limited interoperability between state and local data systems. Reports are possible, but the MOUs provide that before any report can be generated, written permission must No.
System established in 2001 as a data sharing agreement, expanded by statute in 2004 Community and Junior Colleges, Institutions of Higher Learning and its eight members, be obtained from each data owner (agency participating in data sharing via MOU) for use of that data for the
to be governed by the State Workforce Investment Board via MOUs with each Mississippi Department of Employment Security, Mississippi Department of Human Services, specified report. Hence, generating reports is prohibitively time-consuming.
participating agency, a division of the state dept of ed also claims responsibility for the Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services, and Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Missouri Missouri Comprehensive Data System Established by grant application, formalized Collaborating agencies: Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, Missouri Department of Unclear which agency is ultimately responsible for the MCDS. A division in the state Under formal MOU's, participating departments and agencies participate in established uniform data No.
over 15 months of negotiating individual MOUs with each participating agency or Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Economic Development, Department of education department is listed on the state website as being responsible for its exchanges that have been established between participating state departments and some state contractors.
contractor, however Missouri is trying to move toward a universal MOU P-20 Council Labor and Industrial Relations, and Department of Higher Education. Agreement also with development. In another online document, the Division of Workforce Development in A framework for public consumption of information has been implemented. Missouri uses a metadata
membership is in statute since 2009 http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/Pages/default.aspx Illinois Department of Employment Security to follow up on Missouri-educated individuals the Department of Economic Development is tasked with developing a functional SLDS management tool called DataSpecs. Missouri is currently working to transition away from compliance-
employed in Illinois. P-20 Council, by statute in 2009, now includes Missouri Department of by working with the collaborative partners. focused data toward learner-centered data that is meaningful for students, families and educators to support
Elementary and Secondary Education, State Board of Education, Coordinating Board for Higher learning and achievement decisions.
Education, Coordinating Board for Early Education, and Department of Economic Development.
P-20 Council membership statue led to the individual-MOU-based collaboration above being
Nebraksa Nebraska Data Reporting System P-16 Executive Council Data System Goal Committee council subcommittee members (unclear who they are specifically)
P-16 Goal is to integrate the already highly functional K-12 data system with higher ed, early Functionally the system is still only K-12. Highly functional and accessible. No.
established by grant appliation http://drs.education.ne.gov/Pages/default.aspx learning, workforce. Additional goal to be able to accept data from other community
New Mexico P-20 Council similar to ours, established by executive order, seems to be less far along P-20 council very similar to ours Responsible to propose statutory language toward establishment of a state SLDS Has recommended that the language in the executive order become statute. No.
than we are
North Carolina www.ncpublicschools.org/data/management. Currently there is an unfunded executive Informal group members are Department of Public Instruction, Community Colleges, UNC P-20 group addresses exchange of data rather than infrastructure. Not functionally P-20. Have requested $3.8 million for a statewide UID. No.
order to create a formal P-20 statewide system. Informally, cross-agency collaboration System, Independent Colleges, Employment Security Commission and Early Childhood. K-12 is
has been functioning for 20 years. considered the lead. Hardware/software issues autonomous to each agency.
A B C D E F
North Dakota SLDS Committee Intra-agency (State Superintendent of Instruction responsible to Chancellor or board of higher education, superintendent of public instruction, chief information No power to specify hardware/softward but the state does have a consolidated IT So far have focused on K-12 data, have unique identifiers to about an 85% match accuracy stage. No.
organize) Established in statute www.slds.project.nd.gov/index.html officer of department of education, director of department of career and technical education, agency with standards that can be purchased/used. Have power to require data from
director of Job Service North Dakota, commissioner of commerce, director of the council of an agency to satisfy federal reporting requirements of another agency. Each SLDS
educational leaders, director of the workforce development council, two members of the committee member agency is responsible for governance within their respective
legislative assembly. Governor shall appoint chair, committee may appoint additional agency.
committees to serve the committee in advisory capacity (and they have).
Ohio No response
Oregon We are in the process of establishing an interagency governance structure. All partner That has not been determined. As we build the ODS, all partner agencies have agreed that (a) Oregon Department of Education is working toward defining the duties of a Data Oregon is in its second year of implementing a P-20 SLDS. Earlier efforts focused on a K-12 and P-16 SLDS. We No.
agencies have agreed to a general process for establishing governance. We will execute no data shall be extracted except by consensus, and (b) no aggregate reporting will be done, Governance Coordinator. Because of SB 909 and the creation of the Oregon Education have procured hardware for a P-20 Operational Data Store (ODS), and configured the servers and storage.
two multi-party data sharing agreements. The first data sharing agreement will allow us and (c) each agency will name up to three individuals who are permitted to access the ODS. The Investment Board, we must construe data governance more widely than we did in our Each partner agency (Oregon Department of Education, Oregon University System, Community Colleges and
to populate the ODS with data elements needed for identity resolution and named individuals will include system administrators, developers and data analysts. SLDS grant proposal. The ALDER Executive Committee is comprised of management Workforce Development) will administer a blade server in a shared chassis. We are currently working on a
management. The second data sharing agreement will allow us to populate the ODS leaders from each partner agency. The partners have agreed to share all relevant data data dictionary for the ODS. All partner agencies have agreed to use CEDS 2.0 to help us map data elements.
with all additional data elements. In addition, Oregon recently passed Senate Bill 909 (SB elements, so a requirement or mandate is not needed. The partners have agreed to use Later in the project two additional agencies will contribute data: the Teacher Standards and Practices
909) into law (link). Over the next few years it significantly alters P-20 education. It the same hardware (Dell blade servers) and software (MS Windows, MS SQL Server). Commission and Oregon Employment Department. In Years 3 and 4 of our SLDS grant, we are considering
establishes the Oregon Education Investment Board (link), which will shape interagency implementation of a dimensionally modeled data warehouse with data marts. Oregon does not have a
data governance. In the mean time, the ALDER Executive Committee (link), from our statewide Student Information System (SIS). Each district selects an SIS. Oregon Department of Education
2009 ARRA SLDS grant, is providing interagency governance. For interagency (ODE) recently collaborated with a consortium of districts to develop system requirements for a new SIS. ODE
governance, we are considering the adoption of the Functional Framework for Data participated in the RFP and proposal and vendor evaluation process.
Governance published by the Data Management Association (www.dama.org)
Pennsylvania No response
Rhode Island The current p-16 was set up by executive order April 25, 2005 by then Governor Donald Governor (lead) The Council was advisory only, to recommend policies to: The incoming governor’s Director of Administration developed recommendations for a new and improved p- No.
Carcieri. One of the functions assigned to the P-16 was to create a unified data system • Chair of the Board of Governors for Higher Education; “Align standards for achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics so that students 20 council, but nothing has happened yet. In the interim,
to connect information between elementary and secondary education system, post • Chair of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education; graduating from Rhode Island high schools are fully prepared forcollege-level work; a k-12 governance body continues to meet regularly and a longitudinal data analysis sub-committee that
secondary institutions and workforce developmentprograms; • Commissioner of Higher Education; • Link achievement standards with employer expectations; spans k-20+ meets monthly.
• Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education; • Establish formal high school credit-based transition programs with higher education
• Director of the Department of Labor and Training; institutions;
• Executive Director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation; • Improve the quality of teachers and educational administrators who lead schools,
• Chair of the Rhode Island Economic Policy Council; and districts, and school-related initiatives;
• Chair of the Governor’s Workforce Board. • Support the recommendations of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Math-Science
Achievement and track our State’s progress; and
• Create a unified data system to connect information between our elementaryand
secondary education system, postsecondary institutions and workforce
South Dakota The State’s governance structure, at this time, is only at the SEA level. We have a A data governance chair or co-chair will lead the body. More than likely it will be an hourly This board is charged with promulgating policy as it relates to data entry, use, and South Dakota currently is at the beginning stages of SLDS implementation. We have completed the RFP No.
charter, carry out data policy decisions, and meet on a monthly basis. We instituted staff member. security. In addition, this board acts as an appellate organization in terms of LEA and process, selected a vendor, and have begun the implementation. As it stands, we are moving data from
governance as a best practice; therefore, it is not located in either state statute or Department data issues/policy resolution. Can they mandate? No. The State has the disparate systems into our data warehouse.
administrative rules. In the near future we plan to transition to a federated model of Bureau of Information and Telecommunications handle this. They are centralized IT
data governance. The new model would incorporate our education service agencies as and make all decisions involving software and hardware use. We will hopefully have a
well as LEAs into the structure. member from this department on the SD – EDGB.
Tennessee No response
Texas No response
A B C D E F
Utah 1) The Data Governance Board is established under the sponsorship of the Advancement 1. A Data Governance Executive board will be heads of Utah State Office of Education, Utah * Aligning Guidelines, Requirements, Controls * Resolving Issues • Utah has a well-established history of strong student longitudinal data systems in the K-12 range of public Possible.
Committee. The Advancement Committee will have representation on the Board and State System of Higher Education, Utah Department of Workforce Services, and the Utah * Establishing Decision Rights * Specifying Data Quality education.
will appoint or approve other Board membership representing internal data College of Applied Technology, Utah Education Network,and Utah Education Policy Center Results • Utah public education systems fulfill, in part or completely, most of the seven capabilities and twelve
stakeholders. Invitation for Board membership may be extended to representatives of 2. Data Stakeholders (providers and consumers; internal and external to partnership). * Establishing Accountability * Building Governance into elements prescribed by the Federal America Competes Act.
external data partnership groups as deemed appropriate by the sponsors. Representatives from the above 6 stakeholders meet weekly. Technology • This past May the USOE was awarded a 9.6 million dollar grant so the Utah Data Alliance (UDA) project can
2) Under the auspices of the Data Governance Board, the Consortium’s Utah Education 3. Data Stewards – those subject matter experts bearing data responsibilities within business * Performing Stewardship * Providing Stakeholder fulfill the entire set of America Competes Act requirements.
Network Data Management team (Data Management Team) will be the functional units on behalf of the agency as an enterprise. Care
extension of the Board and will be empowered and supported in its execution of the * Managing Change * Communications and
Board’s guidelines and decisions. The Data Management Team will provide status Program Reporting
reports and metrics to the Board for all assigned initiatives. * Defining Data * Measuring and Reporting
3) While maintaining their current lines of authority within their respective business Progress
units, a group of subject matter experts will be identified and given the designation and
responsibilities of “Data Stewards”. Each will represent the business unit of origin and
will participate in those Data Governance Board meetings that will need specific data
expertise for the enterprise-based directives of the Data Governance Board.
Virginia An Executive Order is in draft. Each agency involved will have a "seat" on the Not yet decided. We expect the agency heads will form the body that sets policy that will be We expect policy will be set by the heads of the participating agencies. Our model is We are at the end of the design phase and expect to begin testing mid-May. cost involved in developing No.
Governance Council. carried out by the Governance Council (composed of agency staff). federated. The only mandates are the use of a "data adapter" to pull data from the your SLDS?
agency database on request and a data quality agreement. Around 6 million for the multi-agency federated system. This does not include the cost of the K-12 LDS. Going
back to when we started in 2004, the cost is around 14 million.
Washington The law that created ERDC was passed by the Legislature in 2007. RCW 43.41.400 All state agencies that contribute data (Dept of Early Learning, Office of Supt of Public The Executive Sponsors, the Program Director and the Program Manager will have the Currently, we have a P-20 SLDS that contains early learning, K-12, higher education and workforce data linked Possible.
Education data center. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.41.400 Instruction (WA’s K-12 agency), State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Higher bulk of the responsibility for day to day operational management and decision making in order to respond to data requests and complete projects. An example of a project is the P-20 Feedback
Through the ARRA grant funding, we are creating a data governance structure. The Education Coordinating Board, Public 4-year institutions, Employment Security Department, for the program. Input to these key roles will be provided by the Guidance Committee, reports to high schools. We also have released a series of longitudinal studies that look at teachers, pre-
ERDC is located in the Office of Financial Management which is a cabinet agency under Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, Dept of Corrections, Dept of Retirement the QA Consultant, and the DIS Oversight Consultant. The program will be required to college course taking, and post-secondary attendance. ERDC will begin the work of building a data warehouse
the leadership of the Governor. Systems, Labor and Industries) to the warehouse have a representative on the guidance, data work under the direction and authorization of the State of Washington Information the last week of February. This project will fully link our P-20 and workforce data in a warehouse
stewards and data custodians committees. All state agencies that are interested in how the Services Board (ISB) and the authority authorized by the Federal Grant given by the environment.. Since 2007, ERDC has had 3.5 FTEs dedicated to building the SLDS. In 2010, we received ARRA
data is used and shared are invited to serve on the Research and Reporting Coordination Institute of Education (IES). Specific responsibilities of the 8 groups are listed in the funding in the amount of $17.3 million dollars to create a data governance structure, produce feedback
Committee (All data contributors and other education agencies that do not contribute data). attached Washingto P-20 Governance Roles and Responsibilities. reports and research briefs, build a data warehouse and improve source systems so they can feed data to the
We do control how data providers collect the data. warehouse. http://www.erdc.wa.gov/arraslds2009/default.asp
West Virginia The West Virginia Department of Education, Higher Education Policy Commission, Work Representatives of the State Legislature, Higher Education Policy Commission, K-12 Education The proposed P-20 SLDS governance structure is composed of the following elements: West Virginia has begun to develop our P20 System through an appropriation of Stabilization funds. We have No.
Force Development, and Legislature are working to develop a governance structure for and Work Force will be seated members of the Steering Committee with the chair yet to be • The Steering Committee will help to ensure leadership involvement and visibility in submitted an SLDS Grantapplication which, if successf ul, will support the improvement of our existing K-12
this project. This structure is still being developed, the plan is to have a multi-tiered determined. The current discussion revolves around either legislative representation or the management of the P-20 Statewide Longitudinal Education Data System (SLDS). system to build capacity for P20 reporting needs. We are in the second year of construction of the P20
Governance Model that defines the hierarchy governance structure of the management outside third party serving as Chair. • The Working Group also known as Change Control Board (CCB) will be responsible for system. This system is being built in partnership with a vendor. Today the databases have been built,
approach and procedures that will facilitate day-to-day management and also help the strategic direction of P-20 SLDS. Additionally, the Working Group will actively identify, hardware and software have been placed in production, and initial data sets have been loaded. Currently, the
state to : * Comply Working Group (CCB) will be comprised of executive level Research, legal, and IT staff from the review, and resolve risks and issues at the working level with user forum members. vendor is working to develop our initial set of reports from the P20 system. These reports will include items
with State Objectives respective agencies • The User forum will be responsible for carrying out the day-to-day tasks identified by such as an enhanced High School Feedback Report, information on remedial courses, items related to
• Comply with Legislative Demands the Working Group. User Forum members are considered to be the foundation for P- placement in the work force, etc. It is anticipated that the first of these reports should begin to be available
• Collaboration amongst all Agencies User Forum membership will initially be comprised of Research and IT staff from the respective 20 SLDS System; as such, they are the interface between working group and the P-20 for review in April of this year with others to follow throughout the 2012 calendar year. Additionally, our
• Quick Issue identification and resolution agencies with expansion to be based on the introduction of other data consumers in the future SLDS end users. Representatives of the State Legislature, Higher Education Policy research and IT staff are being trained on the data warehouse itself and the reporting tools to support future
• Balance conflicting agency demands Commission, K-12 Education and Work Force will be seated members of the Steering reporting needs. West Virginia is uniquely positioned for data management in that all public K-12 schools use
Committee with the chair yet to be determined. The current discussion revolves a single standardized and comprehensive data management system while public higher education data
around either legislative representation or outside third party serving as Chair. services are provided through the Higher Education Policy Commission (HEPC). This centralized approach
Working Group (CCB) will be comprised of executive level Research, legal, and IT staff allows for the membership of the governance body to easily communicate the hardware and software
from the respective agencies requirements which will serve the full scope of PK thru Higher Education.
User Forum membership will initially be comprised of Research and IT staff from the
respective agencies with expansion to be based on the introduction of other data
consumers in the future. While the governance committees will not impose
requirements of data collection models to schools, the members of the committee
represent offices where those decisions are made.
Wisconsin No response
44 According to DQC, 46 states have a state education agency data governance committee; however, only 39 have a cross-agency data governance committee that has authority.
45 Of the 39 states that have established cross-agency data governance, 13 have not established any policies or procedures regarding data sharing, authorized use, and/or storage.
46 See: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/actions/3/
49 security plan; data analysis and data use processes; common education data standards; operations and data management.
50 See: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/DQC%20Action%203%20analysis.pdf
52 DQC says these 14 states have no governance structure: Nevada, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, New York.
53 Vermonth and New Hampshire. See: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/states
57 January P-16 meeting: Cross-agency governance structure must be representative, comprehensive and creative. Include IT, policy and program people from all key agencies such as
58 DETR, NDE, NSHE, school districts, parents, legislators, Governor's office, early childhood education and technical colleges were listed, what about also charter schools, private schools
59 and private colleges? We must identify a cross-agency governance leader. Review current models and adapt for Nevada a structure with the authority to coordinate the political will,
60 technical expertise and collaboration necessary to guide linking systems, matching data and sharing information across the P-20 spectrum. Recommend how to establish the governance
61 structure, e.g. new legislation, revised P-16 council, Executive Order, etc. Identify the characteristics of this structure and its roles and responsibilities. Florida was mentioned as too advanced
62 for an appropriate comparison. Someone suggested we look at Georgia. DQC has spotlighted Washington, New Mexico, Florida, Connecticut and Kentucky.
A B C D E F
65 Version: March 27, 2012
Superintendent John Huppenthal
firstname.lastname@example.org; contact: Joan
Commissioner Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell
contact Jim Boardman
Superintendent Tom Torlakson
Keric Ashley email@example.com
Commissioner Stefan Pryor
firstname.lastname@example.org; contact Jan
Secretary of Education Dr. Lillian M.
response by Donna Johnson,
Superintendent Hosanna Mahaley
second email 2/24
Superintendent Dr. John D. Barge
; contact Bob Swiggum
Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi
Superintendent Tom Luna
email@example.com; Joyce Popp
Superintendent Dr. Christopher Koch
Superintendent Dr. Tony Bennett
firstname.lastname@example.org; email 2/24
Director Jason Glass
email@example.com; contact Jay
Commissioner of Education Dr. Terry
(502) 564-2020 x208
Bill Hurwitch, Project Director, SLDS
Dr. Bernard Sadusky Interim
Superintendent of Schools
Thomas Howell, Director, CEPI
Frank "Steve" Snow, North Dakota
Department of Education