| X–A |
Data Used for Title III Funding Distribution
Nagla'a El-Hodiri, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Currently, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) data to distribute Title III funds for students with limited English proficiency. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) specifies that ED can use either ACS data or certain state-reported data. This presentation looked at the two data sources, their strengths and limitations, as well as the implications for funding of using one data source or the other. We included a simulation of funding distribution across 12 states that represent about 75 percent of the population of students with limited English proficiency.
|
| X–B |
Statewide Longitudinal Data System Growth and Automation
Joseph Egan and Lance Calisch
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
If there is one thing that is constant, it is change. Informed decisions are based upon analysis of established and trusted data. When data to make an informed decision are not at hand, a flexible solution for obtaining and validating data is required. The next version of the Core Student Record System (CSRS) is focused upon increasing the flexibility and, at the same time, reducing the reporting burden for school districts by automating data extraction from the source system of record, data retrieval, and data population into the state data warehouse. When new data collection requirements arise, the impacts are minimized by streamlining the path to the source data.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Statewide Longitudinal Data System Growth and Automation (883 KB)
|
| X–C |
Open Discussion on the Current IES SLDS Grant Competition
Kashka Kubzdela and Lee Hoffman
National Center for Education Statistics
This discussion served as an opportunity for state education agency staff to ask questions about the proposal process and requirements for the current Institute of Education Sciences' Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grant Competition. Representatives from the 2005 grantee states participated in the discussion.
Top
|
| X–D |
Sending Transcripts to Colleges Using Low Cost, Easily Deployed, Zero Footprint, SIF Vertical Report
Neal Gibson, Arkansas Department of Education
Dan Hansen, Triand
Today's zero footprint Vertical Reporting Schools Interoperability Framework Agents are automatically loading data warehouses sending transcripts to colleges. They require no Zone Integrated Server (ZIS) hardware or software purchases, providing quick remote installation; and are easily implemented by small, medium, and large school districts. A revolution in technology, zero footprint Vertical Reporting SIF Agents drastically reduce data collection costs by an order of magnitude while significantly increasing data quality. Participants found out how schools in Arkansas are now using SIF Certified zero footprint Vertical Reporting Agents to (1) automatically load their data warehouse, (2) move student records from district to district, and (3) send transcripts to colleges.
|
| X–E |
This is SIF-ardy!
Host:
Alex "Trebek" Jackl, ESP Solutions Group
Judges:
Judith Barnett, Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, Pennsylvania
Aziz Elia, Computer Power Solutions of Illinois
Steve Curtis, Edustructures
Laurie Collins, Schools Interoperability Framework Association
So you consider yourself to be a Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) expert? Participants joined their peers in an interactive game show where they were able to exhibit their SIF prowess! Teams were created from volunteers from the audience. Prizes were awarded.
|
| X–G |
Navigating the EDEN Portal (Part II)
Lily Clark, U.S. Department of Education
Lee Hoffman, National Center for Education Statistics
Beth Young, Quality Information Partners
The second half of a two-hour session for hard core data folks focused on all of the edit reports for all program area edits. There were opportunities for audience participation and suggestions.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Navigating the EDEN Portal (Part II) (680 KB)
|