- Surveys & Programs
- Data & Tools
- Fast Facts
- News & Events
- Publications & Products
- About Us
November 2006 Grantee Meeting
Summary:
The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program (SLDS) hosted its first Annual Fall Grantee Meeting on November 30-December 1, 2006, in Arlington, VA. The Meeting served as a forum for dialogue, collaboration, and the sharing of best practices, providing the opportunity for more than 30 representatives from the fourteen 2005 grantee states to share solutions and ideas with one another and to take home information on topics they identified as critical to their projects in the upcoming year. Presentations and discussions were led by members of the State SLDS project teams and other experts in the field. The topics included: Stakeholder Engagement; Data and Analyses Provided to Local Stakeholders via Secure Web Access; Identity Management; Extraction of Reliable Information from LDS; Assessing Data System's Ability to Support Stakeholder Needs; Governance Structure, LDS Project Team Organization, and System Sustainability; Data Quality; Data Dictionary and Meta Data Solutions; Leveraging Longitudinal Data; and Communicating LDS Project to Stakeholders.
Presentations
Session I | Stakeholder Involvement & Engagement |
John Calderone, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction |
|
Panelists presented Wisconsin's and Maryland's approaches to engaging stakeholders at all levels in their efforts to implement longitudinal student data systems. WI has been able to engage LEA staff to build grass roots support for their system by showing them the value of using data to make educational decisions. Maryland's project staff conducted an extensive needs assessment with both internal and external stakeholders who collect and use data to improve student achievement to determine the key components of their system. Key discussion points included:
|
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: |
|
Session II | Data/Reports/Analyses Provided to Local Stakeholders (via Secure Access) & Identity Management |
Eric James, Ohio Department of Education Corey Chatis, Tennessee Department of Education Jay Pfeiffer, Florida Department of Education |
|
Ohio is currently releasing their D3A2 system statewide. This system provides student data to local educators in a user-friendly format and is based on extensive input from teachers and other local educators. Key discussion points included:
Tennessee presented their TVAAS system based on the work of Bill Sanders at SAS and showed the types of reports that are used by educators throughout the state to make data-based decisions. Key discussion points included:
Florida presented their experience collecting, storing, and using student social security numbers. Key discussion points included:
|
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations: |
|
Session III | Opportunities and Challenges for the Extraction of Reliable Information from Longitudinal Data Structures |
Bill Sanders, SAS Institute, Inc. | |
Bill Sanders discussed the history and relevance of longitudinal data systems as well as his work in Tennessee on TVAAS. Key discussion points included:
|
|
Session IV | Assessing Your Data System's Ability to Support Stakeholder Needs |
Kashka Kubzdela, National Center of Education Statistics Beth Juillerat, Ohio Department of Education Alan Simon, Metis Associates |
|
Kashka introduced this session by outlining grant requirements 19-21. Requirement 19 is a technical requirement for evaluating (such as beta testing) that the data system does what it was designed to do and uses good business rules to ensure data quality. Requirements 20 and 21 are to develop procedures for the state to evaluate on an ongoing basis whether LDS data are meeting the information needs of the SEA and local stakeholders, and that LDS is user friendly and used towards improving instruction and student learning. Grantees are not expected to show student improvement by the end of the grant; however, grantees should be able to demonstrate that they have developed a procedure for the aforementioned evaluations. NCES does not expect grantees to contract/hire external evaluators. Ohio then discussed their evaluation RFP and the plans for developing various evaluation protocols. AR's external evaluator discussed the process they are using to evaluate the system in AR. |
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: |
|
Session V | Governance Structure, LDS Project Team Organization, and Sustainability |
Brian Wilmot, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Trina Anderson, Michigan Center for Educational Performance & Information Jay Pfeiffer, Florida Department of Education Rick Rozzelle, Tennessee Department of Education |
|
Representatives from WI, MI, FL, and TN discussed how their project teams were organized within their respective SEAs and how decisions were made. Key discussion points included:
|
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: |
|
Session VI | SIF Implementation Assistance |
Laurie Collins, SIF Association |
|
Laurie Collins outlined the services that SIFA provides to states on as needed basis. |
|
Session VII | Data Quality |
Neal Gibson, Arkansas Department of Education Rick Rozzelle, Tennessee Department of Education |
|
AR and TN presented an overview of why data quality is imperative and provided suggestions for how to achieve it, as well as examples of what can go wrong without it. AR ensures data quality through their unified data dictionary, building a culture of data quality, and providing training to staff. TN has established a data management/governance process, published a data collection calendar, focused on reducing redundant data collections, and worked to clarify data definitions. Key discussion points included:
|
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: |
|
Session VIII | Data Dictionary & Meta Data |
John Paulson, Minnesota Department of Education |
|
Ben Shapiro presented the NCES Handbooks Online Customization Tool for SEAs to use in their efforts to create data dictionaries. MN and TN presented their processes for developing and maintaining data dictionaries in their respective states. MN demonstrated what they include in their data dictionary and how the system maps to other elements as well as the sources of the data. TN highlighted that their data dictionary is designed around the data management process (data managers, data collection calendar, data issues log, process documentation). Key discussion points included:
|
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations: | |
Session IX | Meeting Your Needs - How to Leverage Your Longitudinal Data |
Jon Fullerton, Harvard Graduate School of Education |
|
Jon Fullerton from Harvard's Project for Policy Innovation in Education highlighted the work and goals of the new center and laid out the issues states need to consider in developing and using longitudinal data systems. He emphasized that data should be used to inform policy and strategic planning and what that entails. |
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations: |
|
Session X | Marketing & Communicating LDS Project at the State Level and to LEA Stakeholders |
Jeff Sellers, Florida Department of Education |
|
FL and SC presented their state's efforts to market their data systems throughout their respective states. FL outlined their entrepreneurial strategy where they seek out opportunities to demonstrate how their system adds and can add value and then engage those stakeholder groups. SC has engaged the services of a well-known retired SC educator to communicate the value of the system throughout the state and show how it will help schools and districts. |
|
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations: |
|