NCES Summer Data Conference July 27 29, 2005

1
NCES Summer Data ConferenceJuly 27 29, 2005
SIF Track
Session IV - 830 930 SIF An Evolving
Educational Data Standard Session V - 945
1045 SIF Impact of SIF Certification Prof
iles on Districts and States Session VI - 1100
1200 SIF Implementation Forum Part I
District Level Modeling Session VII - 130
230 SIF Implementation Forum Part II
State Level Modeling Session VIII - 245
345 SIF Vendor/Consumer Forum Session IX -
400 500 SIF Enhanced Business Processe
s Data Cleansing and Cost Savings
2
Schools Interoperability Framework Association
SIF Implementation Forum Part II State Level
Modeling
3
Why SIF is Good for States

• NCLB Accountability Created Opportunity
• Data Interoperability Recommended by
• US Department of Education National Ed Tech Plan
• Migrant Education Student Data Exchange
• Child Nutrition Act Re-Authorization Bill of
  2004
• NCES State Longitudinal Data Grants Program
• Utilizing a data standard can increase
  interoperability
• Better Decisions about Education in States

4
State Data Repository or Data Warehouse
State ZIS
Regional ZIS
Regional ZIS
DistrictE
DistrictF
DistrictA
DistrictB
DistrictC
DistrictD
5
Pennsylvania
Number of Intermediate Units 29 Total Number of
Districts 501 Total Public Student
Enrollment 1,821,146
6
Pennsylvania

• Vertical Implementation Challenges
• Data dictionary still in the works
• Current data collections is aggregate, few
  exceptions
• Varied reliance on Intermediate Units across the
  state

7
What a SIF state implementation could look like.
PDE
ZIS
State
IU
IU
IU
IU
IU
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
8
What a SIF state implementation could look like.
PDE
ZIS
State
IU
IU
IU
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
Dist
9
Oklahoma
Number of Regional Centers none Total Number
of Districts (LEAs) 540 EC-8 LEAs 111 EC-12
LEAs 429 2004-05 Oct. Student Enrollment
629,145 2 LEAs 39,000 to 42,000 students
18 LEAs 5,000 to 20,000 196 LEAs 500
to 5,000 324 LEAs under 500 Smallest LEA has
13 students
10
Oklahoma

• Vertical Implementation Challenges
• Legislation - language loopholes, funding
• District SISs changing Training
• Teaming solution Whos on first?
• SIF Certification
• Mapping Data Elements to SIF Objects
• Non- repeatable elements
• Missing vertical elements
• Valid SIF code sets not valid state code sets
• SIF is event-based, not schedule-based

11
No ZIS/District Host

• No Zone Integration Server
• SIF Compliant student information package
• Non-SIF Compliant application(s)

12
External Host

• External Host
• District Wave Agent
• SIP (?)
• SIF Compliant student information package
• Non-SIF Compliant application(s)

13
SIF Horizontal Integration

• District Zone Integration Server (ZIS)
• SIF Compliant student information package
• Other SIF Compliant application(s)
• ZIS connected to district Wave agent
• Non-SIF Compliant application(s)

14
Wyoming

• Number of Regional Centers 10
• Total Number of Districts 48
• Total Student Enrollment 83,772

15
Wyoming

• Vertical Implementation Challenges
• What Oklahoma said
• Different SIS vendors, many without agents
• Immediate vertical reporting needs with details
  still in flux.
• Aggressive Time Schedule (May December)

16
Wyoming SIF Network
17
Wyoming
18
Virginia
Number of Districts 132 Total Number of
Schools 1846 Total Student Enrollment 1,204,808
19
Virginia Challenges

• State/School division human technical capacity
• Understanding SIF
• State/Division Funding
• Vendor Pricing
• Understanding Certification
• Funding

20
South Carolina SUNS

• 667,667 k-12 public students in the state
• SUNS Student Unique Numbering System
• 639,339 unique IDs assigned in 2 weeks
• 1st truly statewide SIF implementation
• ZIS agents will be operational in all 85 LEAs
  by 8/31/05

21
At Schools
At Districts
SASI
SASI Agent
School User
District ZIS
E-mail Notification
Student Locator Agent Web App
LEA User
State ZIS
Security Interface
This is a New ID or an Exact Match Situation
Unique Student ID Component
Student ID Resolution Agent
This is a Near Match Situation
At SDE
22
(No Transcript)
23
Lessons Learned

• Successes
• Focused scope and aggressive implementation
  schedule have enabled rapid progression from
  pilot to statewide production deployment of
  mission critical system.
• Independent district data cleansing routines
  prior to deployment.
• Challenges
• Aggressive schedule put tremendous pressure on
  systems integration testing
• District summer schedules and heterogeneous
  infrastructure make implementation support
  difficult.

24
(No Transcript)
25
Contact Information
Barbara Andrepont bandrepont_at_espsg.com Judi
Barnett jbarnett_at_csiu.org Bethann
Canada bethann.canada_at_doe.virginia.gov Laurie
Collins lcollins_at_sifinfo.org Steve
Curtis scurtis_at_edustructures.com Patti
High patti_high_at_sde.state.ok.us Steve
King sking_at_educ.state.wy.us Jay
Myrick jay.myrick_at_thirddaysolutions.com Vicente
Paredes vparedes_at_espsg.com