October 2009 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 PK- 12 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

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act PK12 Reform Priorities Standards & Assessments Effective Teachers & Leaders Data Systems Struggling Schools Race to the Top & Other Grants ~$9.7 billion SFSF $48.6 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

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Assurances and Metrics

October 2009 Proposed Indicators and Descriptors – Equity in Teacher Education Report highly qualified teachers in high- and low- poverty 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.

Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Application

October 2009 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

Race to the Top

October 2009 Race to the 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.Comprehensive approach to the four ARRA areas (absolute) 2.Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (competitive preference) 3.Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (invitational priority) 4.P-20 Coordination and Vertical Alignment (invitational priority) 5.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.

Investing in Innovation

October 2009 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 Awards 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?