SEARCH
 
Spring Data Conference, April 23-24, 2009

Agenda

Date: April 23-24, 2009

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, 2009

 

Conclusions/Follow-up:

In 2010 do not have the same week of BYU graduation. In the fall 2009 focus more on the “how to” and not as much on the theory, whys and internal details. Overall, the conference was well attended approximately 90, and well received (numerous compliments).  

8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast - Networking

9 a.m.

Graduation Rate Rules that Apply to Juvenile Justice Students - Travis Cook

Under the Education Department’s graduation rate guidance, schools are not allowed to remove incarcerated students from their graduation rate cohort unless those students are enrolled in diploma-granting programs while in lockup. The schools, then, remain responsible for making sure those students graduate on time.

Issued in December, the stricter graduation rate guidance increases accountability for incarcerated students and will likely add pressure on local education systems and juvenile justice centers to collaborate – a partnership experts say is lacking across the nation. 

While early indications are that most states still have work to do to develop data systems to track such students by a 2010 deadline, many education officials say the requirements are a matter of paperwork, as several states’ educational and correctional institutions already monitor student progress in juvenile justice facilities.

“It’s hard to say that this new guidance will have a big, direct effect on the relationship between schools and juvenile justice facilities, except that it likely will lead to more communication about the needs of students who are incarcerated,” said Kentucky ED spokeswoman Lisa Y. Gross.

The administration and oversight of juvenile justice education is already centralized in 20 states. Several other states have decentralized juvenile justice education systems, including states where the agencies responsible for the administration and evaluation of juvenile justice education do not oversee educational services in locally operated detention facilities, privately operated facilities, and locally operated commitment facilities.

According to the guidance, only students who transfer out and enroll in other schools or in educational programs that culminate in the awarding of regular high school diplomas; emigrate to other countries; or die may be removed from high schools’ or LEAs’ cohorts, and only if the notification is in writing.

For example, if a student leaves a public high school because she is placed in a juvenile detention center, that student would be considered a transfer if the center provides, and the student participates in, an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma.

Otherwise, that student must stay in the public high school’s adjusted graduate rate cohort and be counted in the four-year and extended-year graduation rate.

YIC data and the USOE Clearinghouse

Beginning in 2008-09 and beyond the USOE is requesting that all YICs report their students’ data to the USOE via the Clearinghouse.

Conclusions/Follow-up:

The suggestion was made that UTOPIA needs to have a module added so that it can automatically generate a USOE Clearinghouse file on demand, and eventually be able to submit student records via UTREx. 

 9:15 a.m.

Elimination of Clearinghouse Resubmissions after July 15 - Randy Raphael, Russ Graham, Nebo

  • Only 2-3 LEAs were resubmitting
  • The November option sometimes promoted insufficient attention to the review of the data in June and July.
  • LEAs need to review and correct data in June and July when the data are new and before the new school year.
  • Resubmissions were very time consuming and risky for all concerned.
  • LEA are encouraged to work with data auditors to identify and resolve problems in June
  • New Clearinghouse verification data are being inserted in summary reports.

Timing of Clearinghouse Submissions

  • USOE is requiring each LEA to submit at least one Clearinghouse file that can pass the preliminary edit/error reports and thus be eligible for a full summary and verification report cycle prior to July 8.
  • This would give every LEA at least one week prior to the July 15 deadline to review the summary and validation reports and resubmit its Clearinghouse file if necessary.

NEBO’s Clearinghouse Verification Checks

When we get the clearinghouse file ready there are things that we do that are more than just the error checks. Nebo is wondering if other districts do similar things and if it would be helpful to have some kind of a checklist of items that would help districts and charters as they are working through the process.

Here are some examples:

  • Have we identified all of the F and J visa foreign exchange students?
  • Have our gifted and talented students been identified?
  • Have our kindergarten students been identified appropriately?
  • Do we have students that are showing up as out-of-state students and we really don't have that situation in our district?
  • If we take the total membership days and divide by 180 do we get a number that would reflect an average student count? Does this calculation work for each school? If not, maybe all the days of school are not being counted appropriately.

There are other omissions that would not necessarily cause an error in the Clearinghouse edit program, but would have ramifications if not reported.

9:45 a.m.

Clearinghouse Specification for 2008-2009 - Bruce Hudgens, Randy Raphael

What’s new and changed for 2008-09.

What’s new and changed for 2009-10 (effective for the October 1, 2009 submissions).

  • New Class Identifier Field. This will allow multiple course-sections to be combined to make one “physical” class regardless of how many combined grades or subjects/courses were taught concurrently to one group of students.

Additions to the Summary Report.

10:30 a.m.

Data Quality Auditors (looking for LEA input) – John Brandt

  • Two data auditors/analysts will work with LEAs to improve the quality of data flowing between the LEAs and the USOE.
  • Help review Clearinghouse reports and work with LEAs to correct high-priority errors.
  • Review LEAs’ state data submission procedures.
  • Focus will be helping to ensure the submitted data accurately represents the LEA
  • Roles and operating procedures yet to be defined
  • The USOE welcomes suggestions in regards to this initiative

For example, the course “Citizenship & Attendance” was reported by some LEA s instead of using the course “Grade 1” or “Grade 2”, …

If a school has a combined course, like “Grades 4-5 Combined”, Data Auditors will help us identify them and appropriately report them until the new “class identifier” data element is implemented. 

10:45 a.m.

CRT Test Processing - Sharon Marsh

  • Go over the new website and error correction screens so that the districts will have the opportunity to see them before we get busy with reports and corrections.

More Accurate Reporting of Course Codes on All-students files 

  • 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.

No updates/resubmissions after July 15, 2009.

Conclusions/Follow-up:

It needed to be emphasized that some of the data elements, like SSID, in the CBT electronic answer records also have to be checked and sometimes corrected via this process. Contract to the expressed plan of beginning accounts LEA user needs to be called and given a different initial password. It is too insecure to have a standard logon ID structure and then default everyone to the same initial password, ever if that password has to be changed at first logon. 

11:15 a.m.

New Race/Ethnicity Data Collections - John Brandt

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”.
  • FYI: Texas is going to be implementing the new federal race/ethnicity categories next year, and have received information from districts that it will be difficult to collect both ethnicity and race from Hispanic parents, as most consider themselves only Hispanic and do not identify with any of the race categories. In fact, they don't want to indicate any race and feel strongly about this. (Additional information regarding the typical race from different countries has been provided, but this does not seem to be helping.)

Handling of New Race/Ethnicity Codes by the Clearinghouse

For the 2009-2010 Clearinghouse submissions there will be seven Boolean race/ethnicity fields (Hispanic, white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, unknown) replacing the current one seven-code field. These fields will remain for 2010-2011 and later years with the exception unknown.

For 2009-2010 LEAs have the option of submitting according to the old rules or the new ones based on the “two questions” fed rules going into effect in 2010-2011. The old rules allow only one race/ethnicity to be entered for each student, the new rules allow Hispanic or not Hispanic to be “checked” as well as one or more of the other 5 race categories (white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American)

In the 2009-2010 this “transition rule” with be used for reporting in the mixed format environment:

If one race/ethnicity is reported Then

report that one race/ethnicity

Else

If any race/ethnicity is Hispanic Then

report Hispanic

Else report Unknown

Conclusions/Follow-up:

At the spring data conference There was a lot of discussion about the best time for the LEAs to make the transition. For 2009-2010 (where the old accountability rules still apply), LEA could begin to ask the two-part question and then first respond Hispanic or non-Hispanic and then possibly select just one, or two or more races from the group: white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American. Alternatively, the LEAs could continue with the old one-part question and just pick one race from the seven only categories.

This situation would then change in 2010-2011 when these students would then be counted in a new multi-race subgroup for accountability reporting. Note there will be no multi-race code for reporting via the Clearinghouse by the LEAs. The multi-race code is only assigned to the student within the USOE Warehouse.

The best recommendation seems to be for an LEA to try to ask the new two-part question of all students between July 1, 2010 and October 1, 2010. However, this may place an unrealistic time burden on many LEAs. Therefore, the USOE is giving LEAs the option to phase-in the new two-part question during the 2009-10 school year. However, it is advisable that if this phase-in option is chosen that it be completed by the end of the 2009-10 school year, meaning that all students in the LEA have been asked the two-part question by the end of that school year and reported as such for the 2009-10 end of year clearinghouse. Otherwise, the LEA should stay with the existing coding procedures through the 2009-10 school year.

A major issue for 2009-2010 concerns students who are reported as two or more races from the group: white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American because many who were previously counted in one sub-waccountability reports.

To mitigate this problem for those LEAs deciding to make the transition to the new two-part question for the 2009-10 school year, the USOE is considering a bridging process. For non-Hispanic students that reported more than one race from the group of 5 additional races, this process would probably involve using the race reported for the student in the most recent prior school year the student was enrolled in a Utah school. For student without a prior Utah enrollment and reporting multiple non-Hispanic races there may be a probabilistic assignment one race based on the distribution of past racial designations for the LEA or the state in general.  

11:45 a.m.

Guide to Collecting and Using Attendance Data - Randy Raphael

The National Forum on Education Statistics announces the release of Every School Day Counts: The Forum Guide to Collecting and Using Attendance Data.

This Forum Guide offers best practice suggestions on collecting and using student attendance data to improve performance. It includes a standard set of codes to make attendance data comparable across districts and states.

There are real-life examples of how attendance information has been used by school districts.

A recent charter school audit stated students on vacation for three weeks needed to be dropped from membership after 10-days was incorrect. If the student is on a prolonged excused absence, it is up to district policy as to whether or not the student is removed from membership. There are pros and cons: removing the student from membership costs money but may also remove them from accountability reporting.

Noon

Lunch/Networking – Box Lunches Provided (Please say at the Grant Building)

1 p.m.

U-PASS Reports by Teacher and Class - Judy Park

  • Rational
  • Process
  • Samples

1:20 p.m.

SERF 2008-2009 - Jerry Winkler, Robert Nicolson

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

Conclusions/Follow-up:

More consideration needs to be given to determine which SERF elements should and can be included in the UTREx student record. Maybe all should be.

1:40 p.m.

Migrant Data - Michelle Davis

The USOE is required to get all regular year migrant student data, from the 13 LEAs with migrant students is reported, via the clearinghouse as well as the MAPS system. However, there are a number of migrant summer programs and that student data must come in with the October 1 submission. Some LEAs do not report summer school data, so there is a problem of missing clearinghouse data that must be matched with MAPS data via SSIDs

2 p.m.

UTREx Status report (DigitalBridge) - John Brandt, Marcus Phillips, DigitalBridge, Kelly Hatcher, DigitalBridge, Jack Perkins, DigitalBridge

USOE Board Rules

UTREx – “will” by board rule

R277-484-3. Data Submission.

  • “UTREx” means Utah eTranscript and Record Exchange, a system that allows individual, detailed student records to be exchanged electronically between any two Utah public schools, between LEAs and the USOE, and allow electronic transcripts to be sent to any participating post-secondary institution. (as of July 1, 2010 replaces Clearinghouse)
  • For the purpose of submission of student level data each LEA will participate in the Utah eTranscript and Records Exchange system, UTREx.

R277-484. (new change for April State school Board)

  • Prior to an LEA acquiring a student information system, replacing an existing student information system, or modifying data elements in its existing student information system, an LEA shall have USOE approval to ensure that the LEA’s new or modified student information system maintains compatibility with UTREx.

DigitalSAMS – “May”

  • Each LEA may choose to implement DigitalSAMS, a LEA and school-level student achievement management system.

Overall Project Schedule

  • 2008-09 - UTREx software development and SIF (school interoperability framework) integration.
  • 2008-09 - DigitalSAMS installations for opt-in LEAs.
  • 2009-10 - UTREx installations and completion of DigitalSAMS installations.
  • 2009-10 (summer-winter) - UTREx pilot project with selected LEAs.
  • 2010-11 - UTREx is fully operational.

DigitalSAMS Status report (DigitalBridge)

  • System is Operational: 9 Districts
  • System is in Progress: 11 Districts
  • System is yet to be initiated: 12 Districts
  • Non-participation: 9 Districts

UTREx Status Report (DigitalBridge)

Brief overview of UTREx and its purpose

Review of data choreography and agency interactions

Project progress to date

  • Gap analysis
  • Transcript data analysis
  • Clearinghouse data analysis
  • Business process analysis
  • Prototype user interfaces

Project next steps

Questions/Concerns?

Conclusions/Follow-up:

UTREx will be able to supply more than 1 enrollment record per school for a year. Will this cause any problems for the current Warehouse architecture and loading process/rules? 

 

Friday, April 24, 2009 

8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

9 a.m.

Handling of UALPA and ALS Data - Jennifer Lambert

@Limited English: (Col 120; Optional all updates unless student is ELL; Reported: all updates). This code identifies the student’s English Language Learner (ELL) status.

Code Meanings

Y Student is ELL. This includes UALPA levels:

  • (P) Pre-emergent
  • (E) Emergent
  • (I) Intermediate
  • (A) Advanced

O Refused services offered through NCLB Title III

F Fluent – Exited an ELL program in a school year prior to the one for which data are reported. Must have an exit date when exited an ELL program (and entered monitoring).

N Tested and deemed not ELL

BLANK Not tested – not ELL

If ‘Y’, ‘O’ or ‘F’ here: - fields ELL NATIVE and ELL PARENT languages must be present

  • If ‘Y’ or ‘O’ here: - field ELL INSTRUCTION TYPE must be present
  • If ‘F’ here: - field ELL EXIT DATE must have a valid date. The date must be in a school year prior to the one for which data are reported. For Example, for YE 2009, an ELL EXIT DATE after 6/30/2008 will result in an error.

Note 1: After data are loaded into the Warehouse, Y or O may be changed to F if the student meets UALPA and CRT exit criteria specified by the USOE.

Note 2: Students who are ‘F’ need to have that designation continued on his/her S1 record for 2 years beyond the school year in which he/she was initially submitted as a fluent ELL student. Students who are no longer in the two-year monitoring period may be submitted as F, but they will not be included in any ELL counts.

Note 3: Students who are Y or O will be counted as ELL for the purpose of allocating federal funds. Students who are Y or O or F with an ELL EXIT DATE within the prior two school years will be counted as ELL for the purposes of allocating state funds and accountability reporting. In the latter case, for example, if, at YE 2009, a student is classified as F and the student’s ELL EXIT DATE is after 6/30/2006, indicating the student entered the monitoring period sometime since the beginning of the 2007 school year, the student will be counted as ELL.

Conclusions/Follow-up:

The big “take-away” points were: USOE will determine “F” status from now on based on an automatic calculation using UALPA and CRT scores. If the student is determined to be “F”, fluent the end date for services is June 30 or the school just ended. Of, course the LEA may override this designation or non-designation in August-September time period. “P”, “E”, “I” and “A” are UALPA scores or levels, not ELL statuses. The “end” date is both the date regular services end and the date monitoring begins for two years.

9:20 a.m.

Course Taking Patterns - Jennifer Lambert

The USOE Curriculum section will present the analysis of the data they have completed. A number of things need to be pointed out such as outliers and overall process including year-to- year comparisons.

Computer Services will be running course taking patterns sample reports for 2007-08 and will be posting them to the MoveITs folders sometime in May.

9:40 a.m.

Educator Responsibility for Release – Jennifer Lambert

Some LEAs are telling schools to put in the CACTUS ID of the principal or counselor with all release time classes whether the class is for a something like work/study (school-sponsored, where it is appropriate) or seminary (non-school-sponsored, where it is not appropriate). Their personnel department is concerned that they are creating a false liability being associated with that staff member when the student is actually released from school.

10 a.m.

Cactus Updates - Travis Rawlings, Jeff Porter

  • The USOE won an award for its Utah Interactive web services for online license renewals.
  • New Web services are available to districts
  • Colleges and universities are now doing the recommendations online.
  • The USOE is tentatively working with UEN to give principals access to their teachers’ CACTUS records.
  • Educator categories to be used for reporting such as student/educator ratios.
  • Elimination of ESL code.
  • No more student only codes.
  • IB (International Baccalaureate codes being added
  • Many principals would like to have some sort of access to what requirements are needed to teach courses. A document defining these requirements will be posted on the USOE Curriculum section’s web page too.

10:30 a.m.

Graduation Rate (NGA, Utah) Update - Randy Raphael

Conclusions/Follow-up:

Utah will follow NGA with modifications. For example: Utah will count GEDs. Utah will not hold high schools responsible for 9th graders that dropout in ninth grade while in a feeder school. The NGA definition of a dropout seems to broad. Better to call them non-on time graduates. See Randy’s document and Warehouse specification page for more clarifications and details.  

11 a.m.

EIPTTS/TEDI – Overview - Connie Nick, Karla DeVita

Conclusions/Follow-up

The SSID system should have a combined retrieve/add process. If the student cannot be retrieved, they are added if there are no near-matches to evaluate.

Noon

Lunch – You are on your own

1:30 p.m.

Class Size and Student/Teacher Reporting Changes (looking for LEA input) - John Brandt, Jerry Winkler, Jennifer Lambert, Emile Eyre

There has been ongoing work on changes to class size and student/teacher reporting for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. See the full legislative audit report that prompted this work and the response sent to the state school board in April.

The 2007 Legislation (53A-301) requires annual reporting of Class Size averages by grade, Student/Teacher ratios by grade and Student/Adult ratios by grade

The 2007 Legislation (53A-3-602.5) requires annual reporting of Class Size average by grade for kindergarten to sixth grade and by core subjects of language arts, math and science for grades seven to twelve.

It is only possible to calculate Elementary Class Size by grade, not by subject.

  • The majority of elementary classes are not configured by subjects.
  • Some 6th grades are configured by subjects.

It is only possible to calculate Secondary Class Size by subject, not by grade. The majority of Secondary classes are not configured by grade.

It is not possible to calculate Student/Teacher ratios by grade.

  • Many teachers and teacher specialists are not assigned to specific grades in a school, but generally work with multiple grades.
  • Elementary School Example: a literacy specialist works with all of the grades in a school. Secondary School Example: a geometry class can include students in the 9th – 12th grade.

It is not possible to calculate Student/Adult ratios by grade. Many adults in a school work with multiple grades such as counselors and special education teachers and paraprofessionals.

Concerns

Non-standard classrooms

  • Extended Day
  • Multi-grade
  • Multi-course

Use of Median

Non-standard classrooms

  • In the past, the use of “course number” and “section number” were used to identify a class.
  • A new data element, “Class Indicator” will be added to more correctly capture the non-standard class configurations that exist in some LEAs.
  • Class Indicator will be piloted 2009/10
  • Class Indicator in place 2010/11

Clearinghouse Practices Involving Course/Class Reporting (Clearinghouse AC and AM Records)

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 2008-09 Clearinghouse Update Transaction document, pages 33-34 and page 38.

Curriculum and Computer Services at the USOE have been looking at course data and found that LEAs report some elements in very 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: Always 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 it is done 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.

Aggregate membership and Day Attended.

The USOE will compute an overall grade based on term grades and credits.

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.

Grade Earned: We will change this field to optional in the Clearinghouse. However, this field will be included in UTREx and may be a valuable piece of data for a student transferring to a new school.

Class Identifier: A highlight of the proposed changes: For the 2010-11 school year and piloted in 2009-10 a new data element “class identifier” will be added to the course master record of the Clearinghouse. This will allow multiple course-sections to be combined to make one “physical” class regardless of how many combined grades or subjects/courses were taught concurrently to one group of students. (Also mentioned above in Clearinghouse section)

Conclusions/Follow-up:

After some discussion the decision was made that the new Class Identifier data elements would be a composite of two existing fields (Primary Teacher 1 and Period) and two new (Term and Cycle Day) from the AC (course/class master) record. Using these in the order of Term, Cycle Day, Period, Teacher 1 (teacher of record) would yield a useful unique Class Identifier for a class in most elementary and secondary schools. 

2 p.m.

New USOE Web Development - Tyler Slack

Intranet

Currently using SharePoint for Intranet

Share Building wide information

  • Dynamic Staff Directory (automatically updated from AD)
  • Newsletters, etc.

Department Presence

  • Calendars
  • Shared Document Libraries
  • Supplement to group network drives

Inter-Department Collaboration

  • Team Sites

My Sites

  • Plan to Replace Personal Network Drives

Extranet

Portal for Partners (LEA)

  • Document Collaboration
  • Single Sign-on

Internet

  • Look and feel
  • Updated, consistent, cross-departmental branding
  • Consolidation of data

Conclusions/Follow-up:

The LEAs were helpful is identifying areas they thought would be particularly helpful. They emphasized the single portal/single sign-on concept. They also liked the capability of collaboration among LEAs especially in identifying software and helping each other in its use.

2:30 p.m.

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

Contrary to what was said last October, the changes that were described then (see below) will not be taking place until UTREx is in place. We will continue to rely on the old reporting processes until then.

Currently incident/discipline data are reported via pencil and paper via 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 special and CTE incident/disciplinary data will be collected via the Clearinghouse, delinquent and neglected data will be collected via YIC submissions. SIS modifications will need to be addressed.

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

  • Last October the plan was: Since not every LEA will be able to 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. Now, this will not occur.
  • RICEP or pencil and paper/Excel will still employed until UTREx is ready.
  • In 2010-11 LEAs will begin reporting these data through UTREx.

Davis has reported it has taken them years to bring all these data together at the student level. 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.

Conclusions/Follow-up:

The USOE will conduct a survey to assess the readiness the LEAs’ SISs for the collection of these data. This will require the construction of a list of needed data elements, their definitions and a proposed schedule of implementation.

2:30 p.m.

Meeting Adjourned

USOE staff will stay to address any individual LEA questions and concerns.

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

Late Updated: 05-26-2009 10:15:22