Table of Contents

1. Massachusetts Department of EducationFFY2002 Annual Report: Response to OSEP LetterAttachment 2B – Overview of Educator Database Planning Project Note: This presentation was prepared for the MASSDE Educator Database Planning Project subcommittee in January, 2005. The presentation provides a comprehensive overview of the MASSDE’s work-to-date on developing a comprehensive system for collecting educator data, including data on special education licensure and vacancy needs.

2. Table of Contents • Introduction • Project Drivers, Goals & Approach • Project Team & Subcommittee • Current State • Educator Data Flow • Methods, Systems & Data • Future State • Guiding Principles • Vision • Users • Requirements • Implementation Roadmap • Next Steps

3. Project Drivers and Goals • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires “highly qualified” teachers in all classrooms by the end of 2005-2006. • In order to meet this requirement, states must collect and report on educator data. Today, limited data and capabilities exist to help MASSDE and districts meet this requirement. • Better data and additional analytical capabilities will help to improve recruitment, deployment, retention, certification, and professional development of MA educators. Ultimately, this work could set the foundation for linking educator quality with exceptional student performance. • The goals of the Educator Database Planning project included the following:

4. Approach - System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) • The System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is a standard set of iterative steps used to develop, maintain and replace information systems. Planning & Analysis Design Develop Implementation Maintain, Evaluate & Enhance We focused here

5. Planning & Analysis Initiate project Project Team and Subcommittee Steering Committee met during our 8-week project: • Board of Higher Education • Data Collection • Commissioner’s Office • Educator Licensure • Educator Preparation and Quality • Finance • IT Project Management • Mass. Assoc. of School Superintendents • Mass. Teachers Retirement Board • Special Education 22 interviews and numerous working sessions with internal and external staff to discuss various educator data components. Project Timeline Nov. 15, 2004 Jan 6, 2004 Subcommittee Kick-off 11/17 Subcommittee session 11/22 11:30am Subcommittee session 12/1 10:00am Subcommittee session 12/8 10:00am Subcommittee session 12/15 11:00am Subcommittee session 1/6 10:00am WP #1: Draft DOE Capability Baseline 11/29 WP #2: Draft Needs Analysis 12/13 WP #3: DOE Roadmap 1/6 Current data, requirements, & capabilities User Needs and Analysis Options, recommendations, & roadmap

6. Current State • What is happening today with educator data at MASSDE?

7. Planning & Analysis Analyze Current Environment Data Collection Data Dissemination /Reporting Data Owners/Suppliers Decision- Makers & Users MA DOE Educator Data Data Categories • Licensing • MECC • GEM • Vo Ed. Register ELAR Collection Method/Channel Delivery Method/Channel ? Education Districts Financial System Community Profiles Data Federal Government Schools Security Portal Prof. Dev. Schools and Districts Directory Administration Paper Online Web • MA DOE • Licensure • PQA Analysis / Data Extraction Public Licensing Certification SIMS Online Drop Box E-mail VES • Educators • Teachers • Paraprof. • Management Legislature Demo- graphic IVR MCAS Results DSSR Online System • MA DOE • Policy • Grants • Licensure • Finance • Program Dsn • Ed. Prep Test Results Paper Form Online file submission Educator Prep Program Mail/Disk Employ- ment Standalone Structured and Unstructured Educator Data • PQA • EQA • School Performance • Program Applications Online Web NES Board of Ed E-mail Educator NASDTEC Financial Online Application Related Agency Systems MTRB MTRS Potential Hires Greater Lowell CTE Ad hoc data collection Ad hoc data reporting BHE HEIRS Educator Prep Programs Current State – Educator Data Flow • The complex flow of educator data is a function of several factors: • Diversity of data “owners” supplying data • Multiple submission timeframes (ongoing vs. periodic) and units (individual vs. groups) • Various submission mechanisms • Numerous systems that store educator data • Numerous mechanisms for reporting • Increased compliance requirements • Increased interest in educator data

8. Planning & Analysis Analyze Current Environment Current State – Methods, Systems and Data To form our understanding of the current flow of educator data, we reviewed all MASSDE methods for data collection and dissemination and analyzed where educator data resides. • Identified systems with educator data and the categories of data that reside in each system. • Multiple systems house “pieces” of data across categories • There are opportunities to streamline/ optimize data. Data Collection and Reporting Inventory Data Categories and Elements • Identified what and how data is collected and reported. • Numerous collection and reporting tools. Each serve unique purpose. • There are opportunities to streamline collection processes and improve reporting.

9. Future State • What should the future of educator data at MASSDE be?

10. Planning & Analysis Develop Vision Future State – Guiding Principles Opportunities exist to improve the quality of educator data as well as the mechanisms for data collection, storage and dissemination.

11. Planning & Analysis Develop Vision Future State – Educator Data Flow Vision The future vision reflects additional suppliers of data submitting data through a streamlined process into enhanced MASSDE educator systems. The reporting side also includes increased functionality and additional consumers. For Future Consideration Recommendations focused here

12. Planning & Analysis Identify Users Future State – Users of Educator Data We identified and grouped users of educator data into four categories based on their relationship to DOE.

13. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State – Requirements • This list of questions are representative of what would we like to be able to answer using educator data. Since we have limited resources, we cannot address all 30 at once.

14. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State –Requirements • We analyzed requirements by gauging the perceived benefit of answering the question and the level of effort required.

15. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State –Requirements To analyze the level of effort, each of our questions was divided into required data elements. The level of effort criteria are all based at the data element level. • For each data element: • Do we have it? • Which “domain” does it belong to?

16. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State - View of Educator Data As part of analyzing the data elements, we categorized each of our data elements into our eight “data domains”. • Assignment: Information about the position an educator holds and/or held in the past • Development Activities: Information about the training and professional. development activities required and participated in • Educational History: Information about the education an person obtained to become an educator • Identity: Information about who an individual educator is • Potential Jobs: Info about jobs available for educators. May also include info regarding future openings. • Licensure: Information about the licenses required for educators and the licenses obtained • Salary: Information about the funding sources for educator salaries and average salary amounts • Students: Information about the students in Massachusetts’ educational system

17. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State – Requirements Using the matrix, we analyzed the questions grouped by quadrant. Refer to slide with questions and numbers

18. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements • 3 Domains Impacted • Assignment • Educational History • Identity • 7 Domains Impacted • Assignment • Development Activities • Educational History • Identity • Licensure • Potential Jobs • Students • 7 Domains Impacted • Assignment • Development Activities • Educational History • Identity • Licensure • Potential Jobs • Salary • 3 Domains Impacted • Assignment • Educational History • Identity Future State – Requirements After analyzing the results, we realized how the requirements were grouped would present challenges if used to prioritize system development. Refer to slide with questions and numbers

19. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State – Requirements An alternative method of prioritizing the requirements is based on analyzing the required data elements, focusing on data elements that are not currently being captured or “insufficient” as currently captured. Use Data Domains to Analyze These

20. Planning & Analysis Collect and Analyze Requirements Future State - Requirements New assignment data is required to answer most of the requirements. Additionally, an identifier is required to answer the questions on an individual level. Identity – 26 Requirements Assignment Data – 23 Requirements Education History – 12 Requirements Prof. Development – 5 Requirements Potential Job – 4 Requirements Student – 4 Requirements License – 3 Requirements

21. Roadmap • How do we begin to move toward the future vision?

22. Planning & Analysis Develop Strategy and Implementation Plan Roadmap - Purpose MASSDE is beginning to map the preliminary steps to go from current state towards the future vision Future Vision Current State Roadmap

23. Design Develop Implementation Maintain, Evaluate & Enhance Roadmap – Next Steps • Throughout this process, MASSDE has used the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as a framework for understanding the iterative steps used to develop, maintain and replace information systems. The below graphic presents a possible framework for next steps. Planning & Analysis Design Develop Implementation Maintain, Evaluate & Enhance Next Steps

24. MASSDE has identified the following as possible next steps. Next Steps