Statewide Longitudinal - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25
About This Presentation
Title:

Statewide Longitudinal

Description:

Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst. Director. Institute of Education Sciences ... Authorized in 2002 along with the Education Sciences Reform Act ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:75
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Grove9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Statewide Longitudinal


1
Statewide Longitudinal
Student Data Systems Grants
  • Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst
  • Director
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • United States Department of Education

2
Institute of Education Sciences
3
Mission
4
Organizational Structure
Office of the Director
National Board for Education Sciences
National Center for Ed. Evaluation
National Center for Education Research
National Center for Education Statistics
National Center for Sp. Ed. Research
5
IES Budget by Appropriation
Total 575.1 million
6
Legislative Background
  • Authorized in 2002 along with the Education
    Sciences Reform Act
  • Funded in FY05 and FY06 (anticipated)
  • 24.8 million in FY05 similar amount in FY06
    anticipated

7
Legislative Requirements
  • Competitive grants to SEAs to design, develop,
    and implement statewide longitudinal data systems
    to
  • Manage individual student data to comply with
    NCLB
  • Facilitate research to improve student
    achievement
  • Promote linkages across states
  • Protect student privacy

8
Statewide longitudinal database includes
  • A unique, permanent student identifier
  • A data architecture that
  • incorporates information needs of stakeholders
  • can link records across information systems
    (e.g., to associate students with their teachers)
  • links individual student records from year to
    year
  • is secure
  • Vertical integration of local and State data
    collections
  • A data warehouse for managing longitudinal data
    and making it useful

9
Why is this important?
  • Valid data
  • Dropouts vs. transfers
  • Reporting efficiency
  • Common standards, batch processing vs. hand
    counts
  • Identification of promising and ineffective
    practices
  • Schools that beat the odds
  • Instructional improvement
  • Timely reporting of student strengths and
    weaknesses
  • Accountability
  • Value-added

10
Grant Program
  • Competition announced April 15, 2005
  • Applications closed June 30
  • Review team met September 19-20
  • Awards announced today

11
The review process
  • Twenty individuals with expertise in assessment
    and accountability issues
  • Three types of expertise with approximately equal
    representation
  • Information system management, especially with
    state databases
  • Technology expertise (e.g., programming, data
    transfer, and systems development)
  • Researchers who utilize large scale, longitudinal
    education databases

12
The review process
  • Three panel members (primary reviewers) provided
    independent written evaluations prior to the
    panel meeting
  • The full panel discussed and scored each
    application as informed by the work of the
    primary reviewers
  • Applications funded in rank order of panel scores
    to a cut point based on quality and available
    funds

13
Outcomes of the competition
  • Grants could be for up to 6 million, over a
    maximum of 3 years
  • 45 SEAs applied
  • Funding was sufficient to fund the top 14
    applications, with anticipated FY 2006 funds to
    be used to support out-year funding of the 14
    grants

14
Grants awarded to
  • Alaska
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Connecticut
  • Florida
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Pennsylvania
  • Ohio
  • South_Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • Wisconsin

15
Common needs
  • Creating unified enterprise-wide systems -- In
    many states, there had been multiple responses to
    multiple needs, but not the time or resources to
    unify them under a single architecture that
    covered the entire enterprise

16
Needs, cont.
  • Linking the silos - integrating existing data
    bases so that accountability, staff, finance,
    student information systems were part of the same
    data system
  • Increasing access building decision support
    systems with data warehouses that could be used
    by the SEA, districts, and schools

17
Needs, cont.
  • Training state and local participants to enter
    accurate, timely data and use it for
    instructional improvement
  • Adopting technical standards that made it
    possible to send data district to district, or
    district to state, as efficiently and
    cost-effectively as possible

18
Innovative ideas
  • Integrating finance, facility, staff, student and
    accountability systems to measure, over time, the
    relationships between achievement and every
    aspect of the education environment
  • Providing a guidebook for other states to use in
    developing longitudinal systems

19
Innovative ideas, cont.
  • Expanding an existing K-12 student information
    system into a K-20 system, integrating
    elementary-secondary and postsecondary data
  • Forming partnerships beyond the K-12 community,
    with university researchers, other state agencies

20
Innovative ideas, cont.
  • Coordinating access to health and education
    information across state agency databases for
    researchers, policy makers, and government
    officials
  • Three state collaboration to establish a common
    system building on unique strengths and
    contributions by each state

21
Characteristics of winning apps.
  • Clearly stated the need for the project
  • Addressed each of the required components
  • Demonstrated applicant teams knowledge of
    current systems
  • A high quality management team
  • Good plan for communication and stakeholder input
  • Clear set of activities and final products
    related to goals
  • Adequate budget
  • Evaluation and performance measures

22
Characteristics of weaker apps.
  • Clarity reviewers didnt have enough
    information to judge likelihood of success
  • Staff commitment SEA didnt commit enough of
    its senior staff time to manage a complex,
    large-scale project
  • Resources some applications proposed good work
    but didnt convince the reviewers that the SEA
    had the infrastructure, skilled staff, or
    resources to carry it off.
  • Non-responsiveness to some of the program
    requirements published in the RFA

23
Characteristics of weaker apps.
  • Participation the applicant didnt show
    evidence of working with the groups that had to
    be engaged
  • Implementation the applicant didnt describe
    how the resulting system would be established
  • Insufficient or no attention to training SEA and
    district staff
  • Sustainability proposal did not address future
    funding needed to implement or maintain the system

24
Plans for future grants
  • If there is likely funding for FY07
  • Announce competition later in calendar 06
  • Award grants early in calendar 07
  • 5-15 awards depending on quality and likelihood
    of continued appropriation in subsequent years
  • Learn from experience with current grantees in
    how to revise and shape the application

25
The Institute of Education Sciences
  • The home of
  • evidence-based education
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com