SEARCH
 
Fall Data Conference, October 23-24, 2008

Agenda

Date: October 23-24, 2008

Time: 8:30 a.m. - 4 p.m.

Location: Nebo Learning Center

570 South Main, Springville, Utah 84663

Phone: (801) 489-2833

The purpose of this meeting is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the Utah State Office of Education (USOE), districts and charter schools to further the efficient, accurate and timely exchange of school performance data. This agenda and all the information presented during data meetings will be available on the USOE Information Technology website.

 

Thursday, April 23, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast - Networking

9 a.m.

Clearinghouse Update and Changes for 2008-09 - Bruce Hudgens, Randy Raphael, Georgia Loutensock

Student record (S1)

  • YIC Full Time (new field)
  • Kindergarten Type (new field)
  • Exit Code – Added ‘HE’, ‘TN’, ‘UC’ and ‘WP’ ; added notes.
  • High School Completion Status – Added ‘AO’ ; changed description of G2 and G3 ; changed NOTE (1) ; added NOTE (9)
  • Tribal Affiliation – Added notes
  • Student Zip Code – Added verbiage
  • Lea of Residence – Added verbiage
  • Limited English – if UALPA is P, E, I, or A submit ‘Y’ for Limited English). ‘A’ is no longer a valid value for Limited English.
  • Birth Date – Added migrant verbiage (can be under 3 if migrant)

Scram record (S2)

  • Scram Exit Reason – Added notes

School record (SC)

Discussion of SCHOOL_YEAR_TYPE and SCHOOL_DAY_TYPE data elements

schedule_year_type

  • S = Semester
  • T = Trimester
  • Y = Year Round
  • O = other

schedule_day_type

  • E = Elementary Schedule
  • S = 7 Period day
  • X = 6 Period day
  • F = 5 Period day Trimester
  • B = 4 period Block
  • M = Modified Block
  • O = other

In the past, these data elements have not been well reported and maintained. For example, although many schools are considered year-round, they have not been always been recorded as such. Therefore, these two data items were required for the first time in the October 2008 Clearinghouse, in the expectation that by including them we would get better data.

However, the USOE questions whether the categories allowed for each of these elements are well understood and whether there are enough of them.  

 9:30 a.m.

New Race/Ethnicity Data Collections - Randy Raphael

Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year (specifically, the October 2010 Data Clearinghouse upload), each school is required by federal regulation (Federal Register, 19 October 2007, pp. 59266-59279) to record and report to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) an ethnicity and at least one race for each student. The implication is that your SIS must be able to support the collection, storage and reporting via the Clearinghouse of multiple indicators of race/ethnicity for each student.

As guidance for LEAs in carrying out this new federal mandate, the USOE has adopted Managing an Identity Crisis: Forum Guide to Implementing the New Federal Race and Ethnicity Categories. The National Forum on Education Statistics is a cooperative of federal, state and local education agencies in which Utah actively participates.

Information about race and ethnicity must be requested in a specific order and with exact wording of categories and their definitions although the format may be tailored to the local registration process and student information system. (The USOE recommends only a small modification — the addition of the word “Tonga,” — to the definition of the “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” race category.)

We draw your attention in particular to Chapter 4 of Managing an Identity Crisis, which, on page 27, includes a model for the presentation of the mandated two-part question. The same chapter also provides excellent advice on how to conduct “observer identification” in cases where data are missing.

This session will introduce the guidance and focus on obtaining data from students and reporting data to the USOE. Use of race/ethnicity as a disaggregation category for accountability reporting is a separate issue and will not be addressed at this time.

Related Issues

  • This new classification will also apply to professional and classified staff.
  • Students who do not self-report are determined by “rater”.
  • Burden and guidance documents from Feds should be reviewed.
  • Other implications – CMAC

10 a.m.

Retention Schedules - Michael McClane, State Archives

Michael McClane, the State Archives Records Analyst for school LEAs will present an overview of retention schedule constructions. The presentation will focus on the records retention schedule for schools LEAs:

Here are some useful links to help in understanding archiving and retention schedules.

10:30 a.m.

More Accurate Reporting of Course Codes on All-students files – Debbie Swenson, Sharon Marsh

Students and classes are too often incorrectly identified by course codes when they are registered and subsequently reported to the USOE in pre-print, all-students and clearinghouse files. Many times LEA IT procedures are used to set these codes up for the elementary classes, which are where we had significant problems during CBT testing this past school year.

Assessment and Computer Services are making a concerted effort to communicate the need to include all data items, student attributes in particular, on all all-student files begin with the 2008 Iowa tests. All standardized tests will be affected including: CRT, UBSCT, DWA, Iowa (low income not available for Iowa), and UALPA. It was also decided that the all-student file validation program be modified to generate a errors if any of these values in the all-student file are invalid.

10:45 a.m.

Course Reporting (Clearinghouse AC Record) - Jennifer Lambert

  • Clearinghouse Update Transaction Document

Getting accurate reporting of course data is always a challenge. First, this involves using accurate CACTUS assignment/course codes.

LEAs must also accurately report course/section and period data as well as the primary and any secondary teachers to ensure that class sizes are correctly calculated. Please review the Clearinghouse Update Transaction document, pages 32-33 and page 37.

Curriculum and Computer Services at the USOE have been looking at course data and found that LEAs report some elements in different ways. In order to look at course taking patterns on a state level, we need LEAs to report these elements uniformly. Thus, we provide the following clarifications on reporting course data:

Course exit date: Must enter a valid exit date in the YYYYMMDD format.

Except for some block classes, always report one AC (course master) record per course/class even if the class meets for multiple terms (semesters, trimesters, quarters etc.). You may report multiple AM (membership) records for a student within a class. This may be done for students who exit and then reenter the class or if the school wants to report a record for each term the student is enrolled.

Reporting of one AM record for each term is not recommended. If multiple AM records are reported the following conditions apply.

  • 1. Exit/Entry Date spans may not overlap.
  • 2. Total Credits Attempted must be divided over the terms.
  • 3. Total Credits Earned must be divided over the terms.
  • 4. The USOE will compute an overall grade based on term Grades Earned and Credits Earned.
  • 5. Aggregate membership and Day Attended must only report the days, in 180 day equivalents, for just the one term.

Examples of how to handle AC and AM records in the Clearinghouse

Credits:

Do not report over 1 credit for the course unless actual instructional time warrants it. If you report the student’s enrollment in the class for each semester, trimester, quarter, etc., credits should be distributed appropriately.

11 a.m.

Clearinghouse Collection of Disciplinary, Delinquent and Neglected Incidents - Brent Page, John Parsons, John Brandt, Randy Raphael

Currently some of these data are reported via pencil and paper and with the USU/RICEP system. The USOE is working to streamline the collection of these data and integrate them into the Clearinghouse at the student level. This will greatly facilitate the speed and accuracy of state and federal/EDEN reporting. While the SWD (students with disabilities) and CTE delinquent data will be collected via the Clearinghouse, special education delinquent and neglected data will be collected via YIC submissions. However, SIS modifications will need to be addressed. 

The USOE’s analysis of a tentative migration plan follows.

  • Since not everyone can get their SIS modified in time for 2008-09 reporting, 2009-10 will be the year by which SISs must be modified for incident data to reported via the USOE Clearinghouse
  • In 2008-09, RICEP or pencil and paper/Excel will still employed.
  • In 2009-10 LEAs will begin reporting these data through to the Clearinghouse. A changed Clearinghouse specification will be available soon for the end of year 2010 submissions.

Davis has reported it has taken them years to bring all these data together at the student level just in one LEA. Nebo is working with BYU on a peaceable schools project, and they are recording very granular data, more than what RICEP requires. They are also considering the inclusion of the migrant certificate of eligibility and there may also be inclusion of homeless data.

This will be a big cultural change for both the USOE and LEAs. It will require a considerable amount of clear and broad communications among all IT staff at all levels as well as program personnel and superintendents.

Additional Information:

This is the current RICRP online form. The same data elements would be used for both CTE and SWD incident reporting, with the exception of a bodily injury data element that needs to be added for SWD reporting.

The first 5 pages of this report are automatically filled in by RICEP data now for LEAs using RICEP to its fullest. These pages will be filled in by Clearinghouse incident data in the future. Other fields are filled-in manually even for RICEP users now.  

11:30 a.m.

Regents Scholarship Reporting (8th Grader Reporting to USBR) - Randy Raphael

Beginning this fall, LEAs (hereafter “you”) are required under SB 180 (2008 General Session) to make the mailing addresses of your 8th grade students available to the Utah State Board of Regents to facilitate implementation of the Regents Scholarship program. Here is how it will work:

You will upload a CSV file to a specially created, read-only MoveIt folder on a USOE server. (More information about the MoveIt folder will be provided by USOE Computer Services.)

The file should contain one row for each student currently enrolled in 8th grade who has NOT been opted-out of the release of directory information, containing the following data elements (assuming these are all directory data elements:

  • district_number (2)
  • school_number (3)
  • district_name
  • school_name
  • student_local_id (10)
  • student_ssid (10)
  • student_first_name
  • student_last_name
  • student_mailing_street_address_1
  • student_mailing_street_address_2
  • student_mailing_city
  • student_mailing_state (2)
  • student_mailing_zip_code (5)

The Regents will retrieve the file from their MoveIt folder.

The USOE will not review or store the data contained in the file. It will merely serve as a clearinghouse in the most minimal sense of the word.

Click here for more information about the law.

11:40 a.m.

Charter Schools’ Reporting District of Residence - Randy Raphael

Correct reporting by charter schools of district of residence is crucial for at least two major reasons: projection of enrollment, which in turn drives legislative appropration for public education; and reallocation of revenue from districts to charter schools — both from local property tax (“local replacement”) and NCLB formula (e.g., Title I) grants — as required under state and federal statute, respectively. Charter schools (“you”) should use the following guidance in determining the district of residence:

  • Indicate the school district which the student would have attended if the student were not enrolled in your charter school
  • This does not necessarily mean the district within whose boundaries your school is located
  • It means the district in which the student would have been residing
  • In some cases, this can legitimately be a district at some distance from the charter school, if the student has moved away from their parents to attend your school

District of residence counts are displayed on the October (Fall Enrollment) and July (Year End or Aggregate Membership) Clearinghouse Summary Reports for each charter school. Beginning with the current year, these are forwarded by Shaunna Ford in USOE Finance and Statistics as necessary to school district business officials during the data collection period. It is the responsibility of the district to follow up directly with a charter school where any concern arises as to the accuracy of the counts. However, it is the charter school’s responsibility to inform the district in question as soon as a student from that district enrolls in the charter school. In short, inaccuracies in recording of district of residence should be resolved cooperatively among districts and charter schools on an ongoing basis before they become problems in reporting and allocation.

Noon

Box Lunches – Networking (please stay onsite so we can begin promptly at 1 p.m.)

1 p.m.

SSID Review and Best Practices - Karla DeVita, Michelle Davis, Travis Cook, Jennifer Lambert, Farah Thompson, USBR, Sandi Hemmert, Granite

LEAs and YICSIS - Travis, Karla

1. Future of YICSIS

2. LEAs and YICSIS student data

Kindergarten age students and SSID 'New' requests - Karla

1. EPITTS/TEDI system and handout (age 2)

2. Migrant Children and Students (age 0)

MSIX and MAPS Reporting – Michelle, Karla

1. Review of significance to SSID and reporting

2. MAPS/SSID tips for LEAs

3. Supporting information:
Utah is beginning to use a new system called MAPS for state migrant data collection. An SSID must be retrieved/determined for each student in MAPS. From these data, the USOE produces files for the feds’ M6 system and for the USOE clearinghouse/warehouse. Under federal law, migrant students are eligible to receive services from age O to 21.

There have been some questions about SSID numbers for pre-school age migrant students. With the USOE’s new Certificate of Eligibility (COE) data entry system, the SSID for migrant students will also serve as their migrant student number and will provide a link to the students’ other records in the USOE data warehouse. In order to assign an SSID, the LEA must enroll the student in a school.

LEAs have asked how and where they should enroll their pre-school age migrant students. LEAs should be using the school number that the student would attend if they were of age. There are questions about using separate school number set up for enrolling just these students, similar to how home-schooled students are enrolled. This is not the best practice.

Some of the migrant directors and recruiters do not know who to go to for SSIDs, or even what SSIDs are. In addition, some LEAs will need to share SSIDs for migrant students and the preferred method of transfer of those SSIDs needs to be determined.

SSID Numbers and Concurrent Enrollment Reporting – Farah, Jennifer, Sandi, Karla

1. Why LEAs must share SSID numbers

2. Methods some LEAs use to share the information

3. Future methods of sharing the information

4. Supporting information:

Curriculum recently met with higher education about concurrent enrollment. One thing that came out of the meeting was the misunderstanding that some LEAs have about being able to provide SSIDs for students who register for a concurrent enrollment course. What the colleges/universities need is the student’s full legal name and their SSID. Some LEAs such as Jordan, Weber, and Box Elder already provide this information well. Leas could provide students with pre-printed labels. Some LEAs and post-secondary institutions (e.g. SLCC & Granite) are exchanging such data electronically via USOE MoveITS server.

The Utah State Board of Regents (USBR) encourages all LEAs to provide labels for the student’s application for Concurrent Enrollment. This label would include the student’s full legal name, birth date, and SSID number. Some LEAs do not feel that they can share the SSID number with the USBR and/or its institutions. HB82 (2006) requires “cooperation” between Utah State Office of Education(USOE) and Utah System of Higher Education(USHE) in sharing the SSID number (which is issued by USOE). This SSID number is used as the “link” between the USBR and the USOE data systems. It enables tracking of Concurrent Enrollments, longitudinal tracking of Utah’s public education students into higher education, and will assist both entities in research projects as directed by the Utah Governor’s office and the Utah State Legislature.

In addition, the label would help eliminate the need to translate from a student’s handwriting and ensure that higher education captures the full legal name of the student and not a nickname or shortened name. One LEA told has developed a barcode system on their labels that the higher education institution could scan to input the data. Any and all ideas that would assist each of the USHE to obtain valid, matching data, are greatly appreciated. When we implement Utah eTranscript and Record Exchange, UTRex, these conditions should improve.

2 p.m.

Better Communication Between the USOE and LEAs - Cindy Butler

The USOE would like each LEA to designate a data steward to receive and communicate all USOE data collection change to the appropriate LEA staff. This includes getting information to program directors.  We invite you to review the tentative list of stewards and provide necessary feedback.

These individuals as well as anyone else at the LEA requesting to be included will be placed on the Data Warehouse Group’s (DWG) and the Data Steward’s mailing lists. Others that could be considered for inclusion are:

  • Superintendents or other heads of LEAs
  • IT directors or CIOs, if different from the LEA’s data steward
  • HR directors
  • Special education directors
  • Title I or other “title” directors
  • UASBO members or the LEA finance/accounting director

These groups will always be contacted about Data Stewards meetings, DWG meetings, clearinghouse submissions, and/or data conferences. They will all get all the scheduled and unscheduled announcements including those like the recent changes in the state education research files (SERF), 8th grade regent scholarship files and the ELL resubmissions. 

2:30 p.m.

School Data Direct - John Brandt

The SchoolDataDirect.org website has the potential of answering many public data requests. This initiative has a long history (previously known as Standards and Poor). Since SchoolDataDirect.org is now working with the Council of Chief States School Officers and the Gate’s foundation, the objective is to provide one data site for all of the states that allows the public easy and quick access to information.

In July, the decision was made to authorize the ACT and the College Board to provide aggregate Utah data to SchoolDataDirect.org. In addition, the USOE has agreed to provide our entire set of EDEN files to SchoolDataDirect.org, and since then the USOE has provided SchoolDataDirect.org an initial set of EDEN data files.

3 p.m.

The LEA End User and Data Quality - Gary Smith

With increased need to ensure quality data gathering from the data’s source, staff development around data collections is receiving more attention. The CELT Corporation in their April 28, 2008 Recommendations & Goals for Improvement gave this recommendation about professional development:

Develop a professional development plan for user training and certification for each level of data use from data collection to data reporting for USOE data users.

Gary Smith is going to present what staff development is going on in Salt Lake City SD to help ensure more accurate data entry/gathering. Gary’s description of what Salt Lake is currently doing will be followed by an open discussion of this issue.

Some LEAs around the country are requiring that staff achieve some level of certification for handling, entering, analyzing, reporting or otherwise using school data.

3:30 p.m.

SERF 2008-09 - Robert Nicholson, Andrew Jones

An explanation of how SERFs will be requested, acknowledged/signed-off and used in the future.

4 p.m.

Elimination of Clearinghouse Resubmissions after July 15 - John Brandt

The USOE is exploring the possibility of eliminating November 1 Clearinghouse resubmissions and instead relying on improved error and summary reports in June. This would be accompanied by LEA level training and guidelines. Also discussed is putting prior years’ data on the reports from the Clearinghouse.

This move was received at the LEA DWG meeting on 10-9-2008 and DGPB and it has the backing of the USOE administration. This will require a lot of communication, training and auditing. It would be good to have the auditing done in June as the clearinghouse is being submitted. This would assist the LEAs in checking their data being submitted.

 

Friday, April 24, 2008 

8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast - Networking (Please be ready to begin promptly at 9 a.m.)

9 a.m.

LEA Utah eTranscript and Records Exchange (UTREx) Kick-off and DigitalSAMS - Judy Park, John Brandt, Marcus Phillips, DigitalBridge, Kelly Hatcher, DigitalBridge, Jack Perkins, DigitalBridge

Introductions

Overview

  • History
  • Objectives
  • Benefits
  • Going from LEA-School-Class centric reporting to student-centric reporting/data exchange)

Demo: How it will look from the user perspective, questions welcome anytime

Under the hood: A presentation/discussion of the architectural components of the system

DigitalSAMS opt-in

Project plan and organization (how it's going to get done)

Roles of various players

  • Who needs to do what and when
  • DigitalBridge
  • USOE
  • LEAs

Schedules and timeframes

Noon

Lunch – You are on your own - Please return in time to reconvene at 1 p.m.

1 p.m.

UTREx Data Models - Laurie Collins, SIFA, John Brandt, Marcus Phillips, DigitalBridge, John Smith, DigitalBrige

Working session to begin discussions with DigitalBridge about the data model/gap analysis of transcript and student record, data content as well as more detailed discussion of scope and timelines.

  • DB and SIFA: Discussion/demo of tools to be used in metadata management
  • DB and SIFA: Beginning gap analyses of specific data elements and objects
  • DB: Discussions with SIS techs from LEAs about current processes for constructing existing clearinghouse files. 

4 p.m.

Meeting Adjourned

Thank you to everyone form making time in your busy schedules to participate in this meeting.