Skip Navigation

Concurrent Session VII Presentations

Thursday, July 31, 2014
1:45 pm – 2:45 pm

VII–A: When in Doubt, Don’t Give It Out: Processes and Tools for Authorizing Access to Data

Jennifer Higaki and Shelly Larson, Hawaii State Department of Education

    The Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE) receives numerous requests for data, from external individuals unaffiliated with HIDOE to local university researchers, community partners, and school vendors. HIDOE has developed mechanisms that enable school and district leaders to properly release and authorize access to data in compliance with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), and other state and federal regulations. These mechanisms include data requests, data-sharing agreements, memoranda of understanding, and research applications. Presenters in this session will provide information about HIDOE’s related processes and tools and invite attendees to share and discuss how their states and districts handle requests for data.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–B: Overcoming the Barriers to Effective Data Use

Patrick Bush, Delaware Department of Education
Elizabeth Dabney, Data Quality Campaign

    Delaware is one of the first states to achieve all 10 of the Data Quality Campaign’s (DQC) “10 State Actions to Ensure Effective Data Use.” While Delaware continues to refine its policies and practices, this award-winning state has marshalled the leadership, policies, and resources to overcome barriers that hamper states from realizing a culture of effective data use. In this session, DQC will present an overview of its 2013 survey results on states’ progress toward implementing the 10 State Actions; and the Delaware Department of Education will describe how the state established a statewide vision of data-informed decisionmaking supported by a solid, sustainable, and usable data infrastructure.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–C: A Comparison of State Funding Formulas in West Virginia and Kentucky

Susan Barkley, Kentucky Department of Education
Amy Willard, West Virginia Department of Education

    State funding formulas for public education vary greatly but also share many similar characteristics. Learn how the state funding formulas in West Virginia and Kentucky compare to one another. Support Education Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK) operates primarily on a per-pupil funding amount, while the Public School Support Program (PSSP) in West Virginia is an eight-step allowance formula. Provisions to ensure adequacy and equity in each funding structure will be highlighted.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation and Handouts:

VII–D: End-to-End Demonstration of the Texas Student Data System

Sharon Gaston and Mark Gentzel, Texas Education Agency

    This session will demonstrate the Texas Student Data System (TSDS), a statewide solution improving the availability and timeliness of high-quality, longitudinal data. Sub-components are (1) Operational Data Store (ODS) which supports the collection of local education agency (LEA) operational data for student assessments, statutory submissions, and other LEA data needs; (2) Unique ID, which applies to all staff and students throughout Texas school systems, allowing for a single identification number; (3) Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), which is the state education reporting system that has been improved to be more efficient and stable; and (4) studentGPS ™ Dashboards, is an optional system providing educators with actionable metrics that indicate early warning flags and performance trends.

VII–E: ED Data Inventory: What Is It, How Can You Use It, and What’s Next?

Marilyn Seastrom, Kashka Kubzdela, and Patrick McFadden, National Center for Education Statistics
Mark Low and Robert Barret, Avar Consulting, Inc.

    In response to an increased interest in making government data open and machine readable, NCES led the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) effort to provide an inventory of all datasets owned, managed, collected, and/or created by ED. This inventory includes information on program data as well as statistical data. The inventory includes basic metadata about each dataset, along with details at the variable level. The publicly available internet “beta tool” improves accessibility to information about the department’s data and enables users to quickly identify data collected and used by ED. This panel includes speakers involved in all aspects of developing the inventory, from conceptualization to information collection to the details of building the underlying database to public display of the inventory to potential uses of the inventory by education stakeholders. The presentation will discuss past efforts with the initiative and outline future plans for improving it.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–F: Pros and Cons of Federated and Centralized Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) P–20 Models

Charles McGrew, Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Studies
Jim Schmidt, Washington Education Research and Data Center
Dan Domagala, Colorado Department of Education
Karl Pond, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
Jeff Sellers, SLDS State Support Team

    In this session, panelists will discuss their states’ use of a federated or centralized statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS) P–20 model. Panelists will present their rationale for choosing the model, the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies, the matching process employed, data access and response time, and rules for data integrity. Collectively, a summary of the information provided by the panelists and the ‘pros and cons’ of each model will be presented.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–G: The Nevada School Performance Framework

Glenn Meyer and Julian Montoya, Nevada Department of Education
Dixie Knight and Lauren Chiuminatto, eMetric, LLC

    This session will explore the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF). The NSPF was developed as a way to evaluate school performance and assign a star rating to each school. This rating is determined based on several data collections and computations performed by the Nevada Statewide Longitudinal Data System. It uses student assessment, growth, college and career readiness, as well as gap reductions in special populations to rank schools. This framework was developed as part of Nevada’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waiver request in 2012 and was approved by the U.S. Department of Education as an acceptable alternative to Average Yearly Progress.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–H: EDFacts Shared State Solution (ES3) Expands

Joyce Popp, Idaho State Department of Education
Kim Oligschlaeger, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Angie Bren, South Dakota Department of Education

    The EDFacts Shared State Solution (ES3) is a collaborative effort (with no license fee) to create EDFacts files that are being used currently by six states. South Dakota has completed a full cycle of EDFacts reporting; and Idaho, Missouri, and Tennessee have completed large portions of EDFacts file reporting using this process. The solution has recently added a web-based management system and a mechanism for ensuring that the results produced match appropriately with prior year results. This panel of participating state EDFacts coordinators will discuss their experience using ES3 and discuss how additional states can join the collaborative.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–I: Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) 201: Using CEDS Tools

Beth Young and Jim Goodell, Quality Information Partners, Inc.
Jim Campbell, AEM Corporation

    Do you know what Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) are but aren’t sure how to start utilizing them? This 201 session will review the different ways to use CEDS with both the Align and Connect tools. Features such as myConnect, which joins the two tools, as well as new reports and other enhancements, will be demonstrated. State users of the CEDS tools will also share their experiences.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

VII–J: Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) and Intentional Communications: Strategies to Communicate in Certain Scenarios

Chandra Haislet, Maryland Longitudinal Data System (MLDS) Center
Kathy Gosa and Robin Taylor, SLDS State Support Team

    Many states face difficult situations with privacy advocates and groups, a partner agency sharing data, changes in the political environment, or challenges with the parent “opt out” provision of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This interactive session will provide some context around these situations and solicit best practices and strategies that states can use to communicate more effectively when faced with similar circumstances. Come share your experiences and learn from Maryland, Kansas, and other states that attended the regional meeting!

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: