1. State and Local IT Challenges No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 State and Local IT Challenges Wisconsin Digital Government Summit November 2003

3. Purpose of NCLB (Title I) To ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards. This purpose can be accomplished by—

4. Purpose (cont.) (1) ensuring that teaching, learning, assessment, and accountability are aligned with common, challenging expectations for student academic achievement – State academic standards; (2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in general and more specifically disadvantaged student groups. (3) closing achievement gaps between white students and students of color and advantaged and disadvantaged students (4) holding schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for –improving outcomes for all students, and identifying and –turning around low-performing schools –providing alternatives to students in low-performing schools (5) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children. + More

5. 2002-032003-04 (final) 2004-05 (proposed) $272,177,316$278,752,070$264,789,971 NCLB Funding for WI Schools No money is specifically allocated for data collection and reporting at state or local level. DPI receives some administrative and technical support $ including $ to develop and administer tests but not enough to do an adequate job.

6. Some Key Title I Requirements Single Statewide Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress More Data Collection and Reporting More Testing Highly Qualified Teachers

7. More Data Collection Requirements reflect purpose of Title I Student outcome data disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, disability, economic status, migrant status, and English language proficiency Disaggregation=2X5X2X2X2X2= 160 distinct combinations – more groups by grade, primary disability and English language proficiency level. Outcomes = test results, attendance, and graduation rates (and dropouts)

8. More Data Collection Graduation rates must be reported according to new definition States must report on the acquisition of English proficiency by English language learners. Reporting of test results is for students enrolled for a full academic year. States and districts must distinguish between dropouts and transfers.

9. More Data Collection Teacher quality data must be reported by school, district, state. NCLB “highly qualified”criteria <> Wisconsin licensing criteria. Much more.. Requirements apply to DPI, districts, and schools Report Card Data must be publicly disseminated by 2002-03. Good-faith effort must be made to meet all the requirements at the earliest possible date

10. Duchies of Education Data Wisconsin River City School District Texas Lakeside District Big Woods School District

11. Wisconsin is not Texas Texas has had a extensive statewide student level data collection for many years. Wisconsin tends to collect exactly what is needed to produce reports required by state or federal law -- nothing more.

12. DPI Aggregate Data Collections Vast majority of DPI education data collections are aggregate collections Data vary a lot across collections. Data are aggregated in different ways, provided on different dates from different schools, and about different populations. Combining data across collections is a problem. Uniform data element names, definitions, and codes across collections are not always possible due to differences in mandates.

13. Islands of Data Collection Special Education WI School Performance Report Annual Census of English Language Learners State Aid Membership National School Lunch Program and lots more! 3 rd Friday September Enrollment Teacher Licensing Teacher Licensing Statewide Testing Fall Staff Report

14. Deciding on a Plan NCLB does not say how states and districts need to collect required data. Most states have student-level data collections. All states in the Midwest have moved or are moving in this direction. We’ve been told that all but one or two states will have student data systems within the next few years. Existing Wisconsin data fall short of meeting NCLB requirements. DPI and Wisconsin school districts need to modify existing data systems to fill the gaps. Meetings were held with selected legislators and staff. Wisconsin hired national experts to help gather input from internal and external groups and to analyze options.

15. The Data Collection Plan Collecting the required NCLB report card data at the student level would be more efficient than any known alternative. Two data systems will be developed: –Wisconsin Student Number (WSN) Locator System –Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) WSN Locator System will assign each student a number, which will be the student's sole identifier throughout the PK-12 experience. The WSN will be used to track movements and progress. ISES will include demographic, attendence, and graduation data - the content for the Report Card

16. Challenges Protecting student privacy by restricting accessing to raw data Minimizing the data collection burden –Shrinking budgets –Staff cuts Widely varying local data systems characteristics and staff expertise. Communicating with over 400 Wisconsin districts and over 2000 schools without a lot of face-to-face contact. Accounting for students being served in atypical ways off school grounds or in another district Creating data that will provide information that school communities can use to meet needs of all students so NCLB purpose and DPI’s New Wisconsin Promise will be met.

17. Protecting Privacy Compliance with State and Federal Pupil Records Laws is required. Access must be secured through authentication, login, password, and authorization manager of the Wisconsin Web Access Management System. Implementation must meet all technical requirements of WAMS. System will write audit trail records No social security numbers, no names in ISES, WSN will be stored in ISES in encrypted form DPI access to WSN locator system data base will be strictly limited. Data will be encrypted during transmission over the internet.

18. Minimizing the Burden Over time, we will work to consolidate data collections so data collected through the ISES can be used to meet as many state and federal reporting requirements as possible. SIF-readiness and data standardization will be considered in the development of WSN locator system and ISES to promote efficient sharing of data across applications and to otherwise facilitate consolidation. The only data included in the ISES will be data to meet requirements in law and only when the data can't be more efficiently collected in an aggregate collection.

19. Local IT System Characteristics SAP Skyward IBM HP/Compaq Oracle Dell Computer NCS Pearson Cognos Wisconsin has 400+ school districts and 2000+ schools. Wisconsin is a local control state. Wisconsin schools have a wide range of data systems and hardware. Some have very sophisticated systems. Many districts do not store key NCLB data electronically or do not collect them at all. Wisconsin district staff have a wide range of technical expertise. Some have very little expertise; some are very sophisticated. Harcourt Microsoft Cisco Sprint Citrix Qwest Powerschool EDS Win School Plato Lightspan SASI XP WSN and ISES must address a wide range of situations.

20. 61% 37% Proficient by 2013-14 = 100% Percent Proficient/Advanced Providing Useful Information Starting point 2001-02 Accelerated annual gains beginning 2010-11

21. Current Status A contractor is hired for the WSN Locator System. This contractor is thought to be one of the top student information system contractors in the country. The system is scheduled for implementation in summer of 2004. A Request for Service for ISES expected this winter. ISES is scheduled for implementation in the fall of 2004. These two systems combined will cost over one million dollars. More Data Collection

22. WINSS Wide public dissemination is required by 2002-03! Data must be reported at the school, district, and state level. Student privacy must be protected when groups are small More Data Reporting

23. Data and viewing options in the Data Analysis Section are designed primarily to support local school communities working on school improvement. More Data Reporting As new data are available they will be added to WINSS. These data will meet not only State but also Local Report Card requirements under NCLB. Cost of modifying and maintaining WINSS is unfunded.

24. More Data Reporting One way districts can meet the NCLB Report Card dissemination requirements is to include direct links to local WINSS data from their Webpages. The district webpage URL could be included on annual School Performance Reports published on paper under state law with a description of the additional district and school data parents and the general public can find on the district website. Publishing the data on paper does not appear to be required.

25. Hopewell School District Hopewell School District NCLB Report Card Madison Elementary Statewide Test Results Attendance Teacher Quality Monroe Middle School Statewide Test Results Attendance Teacher Quality Hopewell School District Statewide Test Results Attendance Graduation Teacher Quality Jefferson High School Statewide Test Results Attendance Graduation Teacher Quality For assistance in interpreting these data, please contact ______, email:jim@.., phone View Wisconsin schools and districts identified for school improvement..

26. Using Data to Improve Schools Local NCLB report card data and other relevant WINSS data appear in the WINSS School Improvement Planning Tool as schools work on their plans. NCREL provided technical and financial support for this project otherwise it would not have been completed.

27. Challenges Protecting student privacy in public reporting is complicated by the number of ways data are reported. Staff and $ are required to design and program Web-based reports but budgets are shrinking and vacancies are unfilled. People without access to the internet need to have access to the data. Disseminating the NCLB Report Card on paper would cost a lot of extra time and money. Alternatives? Districts may wish to design their own reports rather than using WINSS. These districts will have to meet the NCLB Report Card requirements on their own. Data must be understandable and be summarized in a useful way, not just to meet reporting mandates, so students will meet goals and schools will make progress. Failure to progress has consequences. Teachers want classroom and student level data. These data won’t be available in the Report Cards.

28. DPI’s NCLB Report Card Web site (http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dltcl/lbstat/eseadata.html) DPI’s NCLB Web site (http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/esea/index.html) WINSS Web site (http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sig/index.html) USED Web site (http://www.ed.gov) For More Information