Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Education Information Management Advisory Consortium by scd34940

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 4

									                   Education Information Management Advisory Consortium
                    Longitudinal Student Data Systems Taskforce Meeting
                                 August 14, 2007, Denver, CO

Participants
Taskforce Members
Robin Taylor, Delaware (co-chair)
John Brant, Utah
Anne Brinson, Indiana
Kathy Gosa, Kansas
Tracy Korsmo, North Dakota
Tom Olson, South Carolina
Robert Piro, New Mexico
Jeff Stowe, Arizona
Tim Webb, Tennessee

CCSSO Staff and Invited Guests
Paige Kowalski, CCSSO
Maureen Matthews, CCSSO
Nancy Smith, Data Quality Campaign

Welcome and State Updates
The task force begins each of its meetings by sharing around the table the updates, challenges,
and breakthroughs from each state:

       Kansas is beginning their third year of collecting student level data. They were one of
        the recipients of the IES grant for fiscal year 2007 and will be using that funding to build
        a research consortium with state universities and higher education. Kansas has put in
        place a governance system in which the Department of Education will house all the data
        and implement policies that will make the data available to others.

       Indiana also received an IES Statewide Longitudinal Data System grant for fiscal year
        2007. Their student data system is beginning to stabilize and Indiana is working on edits
        to the system for the prevention of errors. The major problem Indiana is facing is that
        IDs are managed locally and are subject to uniform standards; Indiana will implement a
        forced reset of passwords every six months. They are also rewriting their teacher data
        system to be more comprehensive (tying teachers to students); working with their state on
        IT and negotiating with oracle for some additional requirements; their RFP for an
        assessment system rewrite is in the evaluation stage, a decision will hopefully be made
        shortly.

       South Carolina will be rolling out the first application originating from their data
        warehouse; this will include statewide assessments and the high school exit exam. They
        are working on the development of a new data collection engine using SIF. ID manager
        has been implemented in the pilot districts and users will have the ability to create new
        accounts and share the management burden. A statewide rollout is planned for the fall.
        South Carolina is beginning to engage in conversations around a new placement for the
        states SASI system. They would like to put in place a sole source upgrade to keep all the
        districts using the same system (PowerSchool).
       North Dakota is going live with a new state data collection system and will be able to
        link teacher and student data. They are also rewriting the rest of the remaining systems
        (e.g., the teacher licensure system). North Dakota implemented a statewide IEP system
        and has close to 100% participation from districts. They also have standard course codes
        to which districts are able to map their own course codes.

       Tennessee has setup a new statewide connection with AT&T and is simplifying the
        operation store with SIF. They are working with Oracle for the warehouse and have
        deployed the first five modules. Discoverer is the business intelligence tool that
        Tennessee uses; Microstrategy will be released in the fall as the state standard.
        Tennessee is participating in DSAC II. The state legislature recently passed mandatory
        assessments for grades 8, 10 and 11 and they will be revising curriculum standards to
        make algebra II a requirement for graduation. Corey Curl has been appointed the new
        Chief Information Officer.

       The Utah state legislature recently passed a $3million measure to purchase an education
        data system. Utah also received an IES SLDS Grant which they will use to focus on an
        electronic student record exchange. Utah has an RFP out that will focus on decision
        support and the student record exchange. They are also writing an RFP for a formative
        assessment system.

       New Mexico has completed the first year of use with their new data system and published
        their first EDEN reports out of that system. They also completed a statewide assessment
        review. New Mexico faces challenges in the form of business processes and internal
        struggles with silos. Recent state legislation has changed the charter school laws to allow
        charters at either the district or state level and charged the state with the creation of a Pk-
        20 system. New Mexico now needs to focus on how to create a student ID to encompass
        students from pre-kindergarten to post secondary as well as link that to teacher data.

       Arizona received both state funding and a federal IES SLDS Grant to fund a data
        warehouse. The IT unit will be rewriting existing student and staff systems using SIF
        formats. Using IES grant funds, Arizona will reformat their EDEN reporting. Arizona
        has also taken part in the MSIX pilot. They have a migrant student database that holds
        demographic, eligibility and participation data on migrant students, MSIX is phasing in
        on an accelerated track.

       Delaware is implementing a statewide educator evaluation system that will include
        anyone involved in instruction. This data will not be housed in a statewide database, but
        at the school/district level. The data is being tied to student achievement. The
        department is developing a new security plan with set standards for encrypting
        transferable data included in audits and documenting all processes. Delaware is also
        working on a balance score card.

Framing the Policy Questions Your State System Should Answer
The task force focused on the policy questions for longitudinal data systems. The major topics
for policy discussions include:
     Sustainability—what does it look like? And what is needed to sustain a system?
     P-20 systems and national links to postsecondary
     Course standardization
     Workforce intelligence
       Additional data sources including Special Ed Part C, departments of health, and early
        childhood
     Interoperability
     Standards
     Communicating across state boundaries
It was determined that the ultimate goal of this task force should be to convey information on
longitudinal data systems to state and national policy makers. The task force will share this
information through policy briefs on the unique capabilities of state systems. The briefs will be
targeted to policy makers, state legislatures and governors, business roundtables, and the unions.
The group spent some time creating a rough outline of the first such policy brief.

Outline: K-12, P-16, P-20: Student Data through the Workforce
Policies surrounding the linkages-bring all the data together and sustaining it
    1. What is P-20 data?
    2. Who is interested?
            a. K-12
            b. Workforce
            c. Other agencies—corrections, military, health, human services, EVERYTHING
    3. Why are these groups interested? What is the impact?
            a. Evaluation and improving programs/offerings
            b. What questions need to be answered?
            c. Continuity of education and the impact on the economy
            d. Longitudinal Data Systems
    4. What are the Issues . . . things to consider
            a. Data Sharing has to go both ways
            b. How to get a match on ID when going from one system to another
            c. Who houses? Data governance issues
            d. Access; Legal ramifications and necessary agreements with agencies and MOUs
            e. Who pays?
            f. Common course codes
    5. How do you make it happen? Who to bring to the table?—Ideas
            a. Stakeholders
            b. Official council—what is a strong make-up of a council? Critical folks, nice to
                haves, etc. (i.e. major universities, LEAs, etc)
            c. Who makes this happen? Do you need an authority? Funding?
            d. The assumption is that this is going to happen, so how do you make it so?
    6. Resources and Research
            a. Start with the DQC/Nancy
The task force will present this work at the Fall 2007 EIMAC Meeting.

Data Quality Campaign Update
Nancy Smith provided an update on the activities of the Data Quality Campaign.
    The DQC is compiling the data collection calendars of all their partners to assist states in
       providing the data to the various collectors.
    As recommended by this group, the DQC annual survey has been pre-populated with last
       years answers; questions have been added and deleted, therefore, states are urged to go
       through every item. Results will be released at the Chief’s Annual Policy Forum in
       November.
    The DQC is working with NCHEMS to shift the national policy conversation away from
       k-12 and to include higher education into these discussions.
       Check the DQC website for updates including:
            o The Every Student Counted paper has been posted.
            o Site visit reports to South Carolina and Massachusetts will be posted shortly.
            o The implementation briefs are being formatted and will be posted shortly.
       The Dell Foundation has funded reports regarding teacher student linkages and FERPA
        issues; these will be available shortly.
       DQC is hosting a meeting in two weeks that will focus on P-20 issues; Rob Curtin will be
        representing SEAs at the meeting.
       A site visit to Rhode Island was requested by their P-16 council
       The DQC continues to look for opportunities to host regional meetings; topics may
        include e-transcripts, vendors, data quality, etc.

National Education Data Partnership Update
Paige Kowalski and Maureen Matthews updated the group on the work going on at CCSSO with
the National Education Data Partnership.
     The Coordinated Data Ask (CDA) has been completed and will be made available to data
        collectors. States are urged to make the CDA elements available on their websites to
        assist data collectors. The State Education Data Center (SEDC) will collect a portion of
        the CDA elements and collectors are urged to first seek data from the SEDC before
        burdening states.
     DSAC II is underway with eight states participating in this years round of consulting.
        The focus of DSAC II is on the functional processes and information systems that a
        district may implement to conduct its key work. DSAC II will focus on sharing best
        practices in how these processes are defined, managed, and measured, and identifying the
        types of technology needed to support the core processes. The DSAC II framework will
        be made available at the end of the year for use by all states and districts.
     SIFA has asked if creating a state academic standards repository would be helpful to the
        states. The group sees no benefit in this project. See Scott McNealy’s curriculum site.

								
To top