Skip Navigation

Concurrent Session IX Presentations

Thursday, February 16, 2012
2:45 - 3:45

IX–A: Moving Beyond Compliance: Four Ways States Can Support Districts and Local Data Use

Rebecca Shah, Data Quality Campaign
Josh Klein, Oregon Department of Education
Dan Domagala, Colorado Department of Education

    As states continue to develop their statewide longitudinal data systems, the traditional state education agency role must evolve from compliance-oriented to service providers meeting the diverse needs of all districts in the state. This session discusses Data Quality Campaign's (DQC) new framework that offers four guiding principles for states as they enhance their collaborative data efforts. Josh Klein, Oregon Department of Education, serves as a discussant to apply DQC's framework to state and district data efforts in Oregon. Dan Domagala, Colorado Department of Education, discusses the value of data collaboration, including the development of the Colorado Growth Model and SchoolView.

Download PowerPoint Presentation:

IX–B: Montana Educator Licensure Automation

Kellee English and Elizabeth Keller, Montana Office of Public Instruction
Dean Hupp, Hupp Information Technologies

    The Montana Office of Public Instruction contracted to create the MSEIS Licensure System. This system automates all of its tasks related to educator licensing. This session addresses how the system has changed the way the office interacts with educators, districts, institutions, and other governmental agencies.

IX–C: The Return on Investment From Implementing Common Data Standards

Adam Miller, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
Kathy Gosa, Kansas State Department of Education
Shawn Bay, eScholar LLC

    States and districts are recognizing the value of implementing common data standards, such as cost efficiencies in development, opportunities to share tools, and leverage on vendor offerings, to name just a few. These states and districts, all in the process of leveraging the free Ed-Fi resources, share real-world lessons learned while implementing their vision of educator-facing data tools. In addition, participants will hear how cost savings are being identified and documented.

Download PowerPoint Presentation:

IX–D: Building a Policy-Based Decision Support System

Chandra Haislet and Robert London, Maryland State Department of Education

    A P20W system is a politically challenging endeavor. So why build a P20W Policy-Based Decision Support System? Every state is currently facing a barrage of transition questions where the answers require multiple interagency data sources. This presentation provides information on Maryland's strategy to build a system to purposefully identify and link data to inform and support policymakers. A critical piece of the strategy is the development of a series of education and skills dashboards, which are available for review and discussion during the session.

IX–E: The Collection and Reporting of the General Education Provisions Act and Federal Sub-Award Reporting System Fiscal Data

Charles Lee, U.S. Department of Education

    With increasing public interest in information about those entities and organizations receiving federal funds, data on education funding will be required to be submitted to the Federal Subaward Reporting System even as fiscal data continues to be required by Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act. This presentation reviews how these potentially duplicative fiscal reporting requirements are being handled in a number of states and discusses alternate successful solutions currently being implemented or under development.

Download PowerPoint Presentation:

IX–F: Incorporating New U.S. Department of Education Programs and Policies Into EDFacts

Ross Santy, U.S. Department of Education

    This session provides an overview of the revisions to the EDFacts data model that have been made in the past two years to accommodate policy changes, such as implementation of the 2008 Title I regulation on cohort graduation rates, revisions to the School Improvement Grant program, creation of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program and its metrics, implementation of Race to the Top within 12 states, Rosa's Law, and the ESEA Flexibilities package. The session also addresses the impact of non-ED changes, such as the impact of the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

Download PowerPoint Presentation:

IX–G: Engaging Stakeholders in the P–20W Longitudinal Data System (LDS).

Robin Taylor, State Support Team
Jay Pennington, Iowa Department of Education
Missy Cochenour, AEM Corporation

    This session focuses on ways that states can engage early childhood, K–12, higher education, and workforce stakeholders. States share best practices used in engaging stakeholders, along with other tools and resources available to states, such as State Support Team services.

IX–H: District and Statewide Assessment Systems: A Single Source Model to Improve Efficiency and Sustainability

Sean Mulvenon, Jam Khojasteh, Rob Pilgrim, and Santhosh Anand, University of Arkansas

    The purpose of this session is to demonstrate the use of SAS as a single source software to build data systems, use in the development of assessment models, provide Internet access, and implement effective online training programs for educators. To demonstrate what can be accomplished, the presenters model a system that provides accountability measures, state report cards, school and district reports, academic improvement plans, and others via use of a single source. The session also demonstrates cost effectiveness and sustainability through a single source software model applied to comprehensive district and statewide data systems.

IX–I: A Comparison of Value-Added, Ordinary Least Squares Regression, and the California STAR Accountability Programs

Dennis Hocevar and Aime Black, University of Southern California

    Publically available data for 436 Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) elementary schools were drawn at the school and the individual grade level (grades 2–5) from various websites in California. An alternative, author-proposed accountability system based on Grade Level Equivalents (GLE) and Adjusted GLEs, computed using ordinary least-squares regression (OLS), was operationalized and compared to LAUSD's AGT value-added system and to the California STAR system. In terms of interpretability, reliability, validity, fairness, and utility, the alternative OLS accountability system was judged to be the best of the three systems on all counts. The use of Adjusted GLEs in instructional decisionmaking is illustrated and discussed.