---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS
Minutes of Interim Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 1:00 p.m.
CoChairman Carter called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. and attendance was taken by the secretary.
Members Present
|
Representative Kate Brophy McGee, CoChairman |
Jeff Billings |
|
Representative Heather Carter, CoChairman |
Rebecca Gau |
|
Representative Catherine Miranda |
J. Elliott Hibbs |
|
Representative David Stevens |
Mark Masterson |
Members Absent
|
Jaime Molera |
CoChairman Carter greeted the Members and explained that Arizona Ready is newly-named and was formerly the P-20 Commission. She added that the Data Governance Commission (DGC) would be discussed, as well as data quality and the new data system. She reminded the Members that the goals of the Committee are being met: to bring an awareness of the importance of the data system to the State of Arizona and to enact policy reform initiatives. She thanked the Members for bringing public transparency and accountability to this process.
Role and Responsibilities of Education System Governance
Vince Yanez, Executive Director, State Board of Education (SBE), addressed the Committee to set the context for the SBE’s role with respect to data systems. He discussed the general responsibilities of the SBE and the new, specific legislative responsibilities delegated to SBE in the 2011 Legislative Session.
Mr. Yanez explained that the SBE is the constitutional entity that is the policy-making entity in the State of Arizona. Anything that is not specifically legislated falls under the purview of SBE, such as:
· academic standards
· assessments
· teacher preparation
· programs
· teacher certifications
· interventions in failing schools
· school accountability systems
· procurement rules
Mr. Yanez stated that recently, the SBE has taken a greater role in monitoring the quality of the state’s data system, understanding that good data will drive sound policy and help improve instruction at the school and the classroom levels. He said that this focus was heightened during the development of Arizona Ready, the state’s education reform plan, formulated with the Governor’s Office and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). He added that the SBE works with the DGC, although not to develop the data, but in a more policy-oriented fashion.
Mr. Yanez explained that more specific responsibilities were delegated to the SBE during the last Legislative Session, including working in tandem with the DGC to develop and implement the education, learning, and accountability system. He stated that the DGC has the individuals with the technical expertise to develop this system. He explained that the SBE receives monthly updates on the status of the data system from the DGC; it reviews and approves any recommendations from the DGC about the development of the system, and authorizes expenditures. He added that the SBE releases funds for specific projects on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Stevens asked for detail about the funds. Mr. Yanez replied that all funds will be released quarterly; he deferred to Mr. Masterson but estimated that the total authorized funds are $4 million, of which only $800,000 has been expended to date.
Ms. Miranda requested the timeline for the project. Mr. Yanez replied that Mr. Masterson can provide that in his presentation, and added that benchmarks have been met thus far.
CoChairman Carter clarified that the SBE will be the policy maker and the DGC will oversee the actual implementation of the data system project. Mr. Yanez concurred, adding that DGC is independent and will provide the technical oversight for how the system is developed and the SBE responsibility is to take those recommendations and guide the project.
CoChairman Carter stressed that Arizona wants a robust, user-friendly data system that can be used to make end-of-the-year instructional decisions as well as day-to-day instructional decisions. She then asked which comes first, the policy or the data system. She stated that it seems wise to focus on building the system from the policy perspective before determining what data is needed and asked if the SBE has a list of what policy decisions the Legislature must make. Mr. Yanez replied that the teacher evaluation system and the student-teacher link are very important, adding that there are a variety of issues and there is not as yet a single list for the Legislature. Discussion ensued about the development of such a policy document.
In response to questions, Mr. Masterson explained that he is inventorying the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) system and will minimize the impact of changing over to the new data system by implementing it in phases; he added that the new system will be developed in a modular fashion.
CoChairman Carter stated that, in Arizona, education policy is set by the Governor, the SBE, the ADE, the State Legislature, and all local school boards.
Mr. Billings asked what variables will be measured and what data will be collected to determine the success of the policy-making. Discussion ensued about the stakeholders and the collaboration and flexibility required in the designing of this system. Mr. Hibbs stated that improving student achievement is a primary variable. Mr. Masterson discussed the data quality challenges which include how to design for teachers who want to look at data differently and how to “mine” the data.
Mark Masterson, Chief Information Officer, Arizona Department of Education (ADE), addressed the Members to discuss the progress of the development of the data system, stressing the importance of spending the funds in the right way (Attachment 1). He explained the level of maturity required and the tasks to align the system with state standards, as well as the importance of working with the DGC.
Mr. Masterson explained that the design of the new system will be modular-based using small application-based modules that link to each other, similar to iPad applications. He said that in SAIS today there are 167 systems which do not “talk” to each other; the task to re-engineer it, which was originally thought to cost $800,000, is already up to $1.5 million because it is so complex.
Mr. Masterson then described the essential elements of a statewide longitudinal data system, which include:
· unique student identifier
· student-level enrollment data
· student-level test data
· information on untested students
· teacher identifier system with a student-teacher match
· student-level course completion (transcript) data
· student-level SAT, ACT and AP exam data
· student-level graduation and dropout data
· ability to match student-level P-12 and higher education data
· state data audit system
Mr. Billings asked the cost of collecting the data; for instance, will additional staff be needed.
Mr. Masterson replied that the project is not mature enough to determine that at this time. He added that the ratio to build and maintain a system is typically 40/60 but Arizona is currently 10/90; he stressed the importance of designing low maintenance into the system.
CoChairman Carter asked if Arizona would be rolling over into the new system in 2012 and the $2.5 million investment will be to manage the system, as well as part of the $4.9 million appropriation. Mr. Masterson replied that the $2.5 million is to re-engineer and maintain the existing SAIS system; he stated that it is not part of the $4.9 million legislative appropriation.
Mr. Masterson stressed that all architecture and data standards will be submitted to the DGC for review and approval.
Rebecca Gau, Director of Education Innovation, Governor's Office, Governor's P-20 Council/Education Data Governance Task Force, stated that today’s Arizona Ready concept came out of the Arizona Education Reform plan which came out of a task force that the P-20 Council put together initially to develop the Race to the Top applications, which were not funded but helped to develop a roadmap in collaboration with all the stakeholders. Ms. Gau stated that the task now is how to move forward with a statewide view for Arizona’s education system, which is focused on creating a results-driven atmosphere. She stressed that a data system is key to this view.
Ms. Gau explained that the Governor’s Office is not on the DGC, but is working collaboratively with it, particularly in discussions on the data system with regard to funding and priorities.
CoChairman Carter stressed the importance of developing “job descriptions” for each of the collaborative elements of the data system project.
J. Elliott Hibbs, Chairman, Data Governance Commission, explained that the DGC was created by the Legislature (Attachment 2) to:
· identify, examine and evaluate the needs of public educational institutions
· provide recommendations on proposals for technology spending in the education arena
· analyze and recommend policies for various aspects of data management
· establish guidelines for future technology implementation
Mr. Hibbs added that the DGC is a 13-member body, established within the ADE, which represents various aspects of expertise in the areas of administration, information technology, and business, and will act as a guide in approving technology spending and as a resource on a number of other issues ranging from privacy and security to resolution of data conflicts. He stated that he is not certain how to do all that is mandated by the legislation, which he sees as a huge charge, and described some of the more challenging tasks.
CoChairman Carter added that it has not yet been determined who will own the data and who will have access to the data, but the decisions will all begin with the DGC, then be transmitted through the SBE, and ultimately implemented by the ADE.
Discussion of the Most Recent Data Quality Survey Submission
CoChairman Carter distributed the results of the Data Quality Survey (Attachment 3).
Discussion of the Cost and Fiscal Implications of State Education Data Systems
CoChairman Carter introduced this topic by asking why $2.5 million is needed to maintain SAIS.
Mr. Masterson replied that the cost is to support the existing legacy system SAIS, to deconstruct how it was built, to purchase new hardware necessary to keep it up and running, and to hire the staff required to do this. He clarified that $1 million came from the Governor’s Office and the remaining $1.5 million came from ADE’s operations budget.
CoChairman Carter then identified the $4.9 million appropriated in the last budget cycle, which will be augmented by the $6 per secondary student to be collected for a total of $6.2 million for the modernization project.
Mr. Masterson distributed a summary of ADE budget requests (Attachment 4) and explained that only about $870,000 of the $4.9 million budget appropriation has been spent. The upcoming projects which comprise the remaining $4.08 million have been submitted to DGC for approval. He described some projects that have already been approved, such as the identity management system. He stressed the importance of the stakeholders identifying the requirements for the system, but stated that he has begun work in order to elicit feedback that will guide the development. He informed the Committee that information technology is not a low-cost investment; businesses spend between four and eight percent of every dollar of revenue just running information technology. He estimates that the cost to run the current SAIS system is much higher because of its inefficiency.
CoChairman Carter commented that four to eight percent of the $3.5 billion appropriation to ADE for the current fiscal year totals $14 to $28 million, and only $4.9 million is appropriated for this information technology project. Mr. Stevens clarified that the costs will be higher.
Mr. Masterson commented that the earlier the SAIS platform is replaced, the greater the savings will be.
Ms. Miranda inquired about ELL; discussion ensued because ELL is not in the SAIS system but is in a separate system because it is a business requirement.
Mr. Masterson informed the members that there are 300 business rules in the current system, and all but 70 are mapped. Mr. Billings stated that some of these rule changes must be addressed by the Legislature; he added that this will be a process that could take many years to install, implement, integrate, and obtain valuable data.
CoChairman Carter inquired about the process to choose vendors. Mr. Masterson explained that the DGC will set the rules, and then ADE will put the jobs out for bid.
Mr. Hibbs commented that the state has a procurement code. The new system will utilize existing contractors already under state contract and select outside contractors for temporary work rather than hire full-time employees; he added that some modules may be available through outside vendors and can be put out for bid.
Public Testimony
Hal Borhauer, representing self, expressed his concern that he does not see the gathering and development of meaningful data, and that the stated goals are not realistic and will not prepare students to fill workforce needs. He stated his opinion that associate or technical degrees are better goals than doubling the number of four-year degrees.
Jonathan Butcher, Education Director, The Goldwater Institute, described his experiences with the data transition in the South Carolina school system. He commented that the student information system was separate from the student achievement system because the state tests were outsourced. He added that the transition took one-and-a-half years.
Scott Thompson, Executive Director, Business Services, Dysart Unified School District, explained that he was involved in the implementation of SAIS. He stated that creation of the DGC is a key improvement in the process. He stressed that the development of the integrity rules is a critical part of the process. He stated that understanding who is in charge of the process is a very important determination.
CoChairman Carter described two remaining issues:
CoChairman Carter reiterated the importance of collecting a brief job description, encompassing the areas of responsibility, from each of the stakeholders in the policy-making portion of the process.
CoChairman Carter added that the Committee will have one more meeting to discuss:
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
_______________________________
Jane Dooley, Committee Secretary
December 22, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
AD HOC COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS
December 6, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------