Transcript Document

ARRA and State Initiatives:
User Perspectives
Bethann Canada
Director of Educational Information Management
Virginia Department of Education
Dr. Larry Fruth
Executive Director/CEO
SIF Association
October 2009
Agenda
• Virginia Background
• Assurances of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
• State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)
Indicators and Descriptors
• Race to the Top (RTTT) Competitive Grant
Application
• Longitudinal Data Systems (LDS) Competitive
Grant Application due November 19
• Investing in Innovation Grants
October 2009
Virginia
• 132 School Divisions, 1900 Schools, 1.2
Million Students
– Smallest Division: 273 Students
– Largest Division: 169,050 Students
• 7 or 8 different Student Information
Systems, all configured differently
• Strong collaboration between divisions
and state
October 2009
Virginia’s EIMS
• Each student PK-12 assigned a unique
identifier that persists throughout their PK12 career
• Student level record collections that allow
us to calculate true longitudinal
graduation and dropout rates
• State data warehouse containing over 22
million student-level state assessments
• Voluntary SIF Initiative
• Grant-supported e-Transcript project
October 2009
SIF Initiative
• 120 of 132 divisions participating
• 62 divisions using SIF for local
applications
• State pays for SIF Agent and ZIS
software (full use license)
• Division supplies server
October 2009
e-Transcript
• 42 divisions signed up!
• Many IHEs interested
• SIF from division to state
• PESC from state to Transcript Center
• PESC XML, EDI, pdf, or paper from
Transcript Center to institution
October 2009
Driving Forces
• Multiple policy groups pushing PK-20
• Data Quality Campaign’s “10 Essential
Elements”
• Quick and accurate enrollment and placement
of transfer students
• Higher ed admissions offices seeking paperless
processes
• Teacher ed programs seeking classroom
outcomes of grads
• K-12 seeking postsecondary outcomes of grads
• The ARRA, the ARRA, the ARRA!!!
October 2009
Response to Driving Forces
• Revised transcript regulations
– Allows for “digital data exchange”
• Received IES grant
– Proposal includes e-Transcript
• Piloted in Spring 2008
– Rolling out now
• Student identifier required in postsecondary
data collection
• Work with National Student Clearinghouse
• 18-month negotiation with Attorney General
– Convoluted, but now we can study how our
graduates perform in postsecondary
October 2009
Enrollment in postsecondary institutions based on high school credential earned:
Combined graduating classes of 2006 and 2007
Virginia Public Schools
100%
Four-year PSI
90%
Tw o Year PSI
80%
Less than Tw o-year PSI
70%
60%
Percent enrolled in Postseconary 50%
Instititions (PSI)
40%
30%
20%
10%
a
om
pl
et
io
D
Pr
og
ra
m
C
Sp
ec
ia
l
D
S
C
er
t.
of
ifi
ed
M
od
n
ip
lo
m
a
ED
ta
nd
ar
d
as
ED
G
ip
lo
m
fI
SA
pa
rt
o
G
EP
D
A
G
a
ar
d
St
an
d
A
dv
an
ce
d
D
D
ip
lo
m
ip
lo
m
a
IB
0%
High School Credential
October 2009
American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act PK12 Reform Priorities
Standards &
Assessments
SFSF
$48.6
billion
Effective Teachers
& Leaders
Data Systems
Struggling Schools
Race to
the Top &
Other
Grants
~$9.7
billion
October 2009
ARRA Immediate Impacts
• Fiscal support to SEA and LEAs for staffing
and resource continuation
• Cross SEA “Silo” Conversations
• Cross State Agency Conversations – Yes
Even with Higher Education!
• Collaboration and Leveraging Conversations
– Citizens vs Institutional Approach
October 2009
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Assurances and Metrics
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Equity in Teacher Education
• Report highly qualified teachers in high- and lowpoverty schools
• Report on how teacher and principal performance is
evaluated
– Does the evaluation include student achievement
outcomes?
• Report on the distribution of performance ratings or
levels among teachers and principals
“… in order to address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers between
high- and low-poverty schools and to ensure that low-income and minority children
are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or
out-of-field teachers.”
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
For pre-school through postsecondary education,
these elements include:
1. A unique statewide student identifier that does not
permit a student to be individually identified by users
of the system;
2. student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information;
“… the ARRA requires a State receiving funds under the Stabilization
program to provide an assurance that it will establish a statewide
longitudinal data system that includes the elements described in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871).”
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
For pre-school through postsecondary education,
these elements include:
3. student-level information about the points at
which students exit, transfer in, transfer out,
drop out, or complete P-16 education
programs;
4. the capacity to communicate with higher
education data systems; and
5. an audit system assessing data quality,
validity, and reliability.
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
For preschool through grade 12 education,
these elements include:
6. yearly State assessment records of individual
students;
7. information on students not tested, by grade
and subject;
8. a teacher identifier system with the ability to
match teachers to students;
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
For preschool through grade 12 education,
these elements include:
9. student-level transcript information, including
on courses completed and grades earned;
and
10. student-level college readiness test scores.
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
Finally, for postsecondary education, the elements
include:
11. information regarding the extent to which students
transition successfully from secondary school to
postsecondary education, including whether
students enroll in remedial coursework; and
12. other information determined necessary to
address alignment and adequate preparation for
success in postsecondary education.
“These elements constitute the minimum requirements of a modern statewide
longitudinal data system.”
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Improving Collection and Use of Data
In addition:
“With respect to teachers’ receipt of data on
student performance that include estimates of
individual teacher impact on student achievement,
we propose to require a state to indicate whether it
provides such data to teachers in grades in which
the State administers reading/language arts and
mathematics assessments.”
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Standards and Assessments
States will report
• Whether students are provided high-quality State
assessments
• Whether the State is engaged in activities to enhance its
assessments
• Whether students with disabilities and limited English
proficient students are included in State assessment
systems
• Whether the State makes available information regarding
student academic performance compared to student
academic performance in other States.
• The extent to which students graduate from high school in
four years with a regular high school diploma and continue
on to pursue a college education or technical training
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Standards and Assessments
In addition, whether the state is
• Working in collaboration or consortia with other
States or organizations to improve the quality,
validity, and reliability of State academic
assessments
• Measuring student academic achievement using
multiple measures of academic achievement from
multiple sources
• Charting student progress over time
• Evaluating student academic achievement using
comprehensive instruments, such as performance
and technology-based assessments
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
Supporting Struggling Schools
A state must collect and report data on
• Schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring
• Charter schools operating in the state
October 2009
Proposed Indicators and Descriptors –
State Plan
If a State is not currently able to collect or
report the data or other information, the plan
must describe the State's process and
timeline for developing and implementing
the means to do so as soon as possible but
no later than September 30, 2011, the date
by which funds received under the
Stabilization program must be obligated. The
State plan must describe the State's
collection and reporting abilities with respect
to each individual indicator or descriptor.
October 2009
Longitudinal Data Systems Grant
Application
Longitudinal Data Systems Grant
• Competitive Grant
• $245 Million
• Applications due November 19
October 2009
Longitudinal Data Systems Grant
• Grant proposals are required to contain the 12
elements prescribed by America Competes
• Numerous references to connecting to
postsecondary, workforce, and military data
• Must link students to teachers and teachers to
their preparation programs
• Required to support interoperability and
standards - SIF and PESC specifically mentioned
October 2009
Race to the Top
Race to the Top
• @ 4 billion in competitive grants to states
• 50 percent or more must be subgrants to LEAs
• Funds to LEAs based on relative shares of
funding under Title I
• Governor must apply
• Incentives for comprehensive reform strategies
across the four ARRA areas
• Five priority areas
October 2009
Race to the Top Priorities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comprehensive approach to the four ARRA areas
(absolute)
Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (competitive preference)
Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal
Data Systems (invitational priority)
P-20 Coordination and Vertical Alignment (invitational
priority)
School-level Conditions for Reform and Innovation
(invitational priority)
Applicants must ensure they will develop the 12
Longitudinal Data Systems components in America Competes and
report the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs.
October 2009
Investing in Innovation
Investing In Innovation Fund
• $650 million in competitive grants for LEAs
• Collaboration with nonprofits
• Recipients must match federal funds with
public or private dollars
• Must demonstrate sustainability
• 30 Day comment period soon
• Applications due spring/summer 2010Awards early fall 2010
October 2009
Investing In Innovation Fund
Three Categories of Grants
• Scale-up (>=50M)
– Programs and practices that have the potential
to reach hundreds of thousands of students
• Validation (>=30M)
– Expanding existing, promising programs
• Development (>=5M)
– New and high-potential practices
October 2009
State Conversations: S-SIG
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Selecting and managing vendors
Understanding SIF and PESC
Deployment options
Usage and MOUs among state agencies
Project management scenarios
Web Services
Managing implementations in local control
states
• Capacity to support districts
October 2009
Questions for you
•
What do postsecondary institutions need
to know/need to do to accomplish the
ARRA requirements?
•
What do standards bodies like SIF
Community and PESC need to do to
support their members in accomplishing
the requirements?
•
What do vendors need to know to support
their customers?
October 2009
Thank You
Questions?
[email protected]
804-225-2951
[email protected]
202-607-1178
October 2009