MOUs: Interstate and Intrastate Agreements

1. MOUs: Interstate and Intrastate Agreements • Tuesday, October 30, 2012 • Jan Kiene, Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education • Connie Brooks, Iowa Department of Education

2. Overview Connecticut Overview Iowa MOU Overview • Regents MOU at Final Edit • Workforce MOU Signed • Inter-State MOU in Progress

3. Connecticut

4. Background MOA to enable data linkages for P20W system • Goal: • Create a solid template for participating AG’s to modify. • Challenges: • Agency lack of familiarity with new FERPA guidelines • Wary State Attorney General • Lack of in-house counsel

5. MOA for P-20W system

6. Process for P-20W system MOA • Read relevant FERPA sections • Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements • Gathered example MOU’s through GRADS360 • Created a draft • Asked SST contact for review and was referred to PTAC • PTAC read and scheduled conference call to provide feedback • Made adjustments • Circulated to participating agencies • Meeting scheduled to review/adjust…finalize

7. Background MOA to enable regular reporting –Perkins • Goal • Create MOA specifically for Perkins reporting • Challenges • Lack of in-house counsel • No existing agreement to build upon • Running out of time for analysis

8. MOA for Perkins

9. Process for Perkins MOA • Reviewed relevant FERPA sections - again • Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements • Revised draft P20W MOA • Contacted PTAC • PTAC read and scheduled conference call to provide feedback • Circulated for signatures

10. Iowa

11. IowainContext 2012 Grant creates a collaborative team • K12 (part of IDE) • Community Colleges (part of IDE) • Regents Universities – MOU needed • Workforce – MOU needed Each area has a team member and a Steering Committee member

12. FERPA Requirements • Written Agreement • Designate “authorized representative” • Specify • Purpose (audit & eval exception to consent) • PII • Destruction dates and procedures • Policies & procedures to ensure privacy provisions of all state and federal laws will be followed

13. Process Hints The *magic* template that only requires search/replace didn’t exist Identify parties and legal provisions for the different parties • IDE & Regents = FERPA to FERPA • IDE & Workforce = FERPA to State Laws Start with “their” template for the “other” verbage, e.g., severability, termination, etc.

14. Regents & IDE: FERPA & FERPA Paranoia & Paranoia? Iowa Exceptionality: State law REQUIRES post-secondary institutions to STORE state-generated educational IDs ()

15. Purpose & Authority This Agreement is entered into to exchange data needed for Iowa’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) in order to comply with the: • America Competes Act (ACA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-69) • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111-5 and 11-8), and • State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) programs of 2009 and 2011 (34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II) These initiatives require the IDE to include Regent universities’ data “in the evaluation of K-12 education policy and practice in order to better align state academic content standards and curricula with the demands of postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces.”

16. Specify PII Data Elements The number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions within 16 months after high school graduation (ARRA/SFSF indicator C11) and The number of those enrolled students who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit within 24 months of enrollment (ARRA/SFSF indicator C12) The IDE also plans to analyze and report findings related to remedial coursework, graduation rates, and transfers between community colleges and Regent universities (ACA).

17. Data Destruction One-time reports (e.g., remediation, C11, C12) Process: Replace one-time data with new Longitudinal storage (enrollment, transfers, awards) Destruction Date = Contract Termination Date

18. Regents Postscripts Original expectations are limited to legally mandated data elements Preliminary discussions for High School Feedback Reports Do not currently support long-term storage – will need to use National Student Clearinghouse 30 days to provide acceptance or rejection of any additional data needed for reporting, or for any new data required for new or different reports

19. Workforce Different agency, different laws, different needs, different tone Started with recently signed MOU for skeleton Asked for governing laws = State specific IDE FERPA side: • Authorized Representative may store our educational State IDs • Audit and Evaluation purpose

20. Workforce MOU Specifics Shared ownership of linked datasets May be stored for duration of contract (3 yrs) and then destroyed unless new contract Reports aggregate–level data only or de-identified for other parties Veto power: 30 days to accept or reject reports before release Interpretative caveats with any released reports and data sets

21. Workforce Postscripts Fully executed within a few weeks once specifics agreed to; 11 months total Process: • IDE provides name & DOB & education ID • Workforce matches to DMV/DOT data for SSN • Workforce stores education ID with their SSN Workforce has not asked for any specific education indicators (ITBS, ACT, Grad Status)

22. Interstate MOU Purpose is to find dropouts across state lines State-level users only to start with Some interest in opening up for district-level users State would notify district when found so transcripts could be sent Iowa + Nebraska + Kansas + Missouri All eScholar customers

23. Security eScholar Interstate ID eXchange NE UID eScholar Data eXchange Service Server (DeXs) DeXs Cert SSL NE Server Cert KS UID NE Cert DeXs Cert MO Cert SSL MO UID KS Server Cert SSL KS Cert DeXs Cert IA Cert MO Server Cert DeXs Server Cert SSL DeXs Database Search Request Search Result DeXs Cert Internet Access IA Server Cert IA UID Server Certificate

24. Purpose This exchange of information between authorized representatives of state educational authorities intended for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that relate to Federal or state supported education programs, specifically the accurate calculation of a party’s graduation rate under 34 CFR 200.19(b) and state reporting requirements under 34 CFR 76.720

25. Details PII - Data List Attached Destruction - Absent extenuating circumstances, this will be within ________ of the receipt of the information. The method of destruction shall be ________. Wrangling over ability to re-release to districts – may require specific verbage, may not be necessary 

26. Inter-State Postscript Not yet signed, but appears imminent. Attorneys are meeting to get final details All working from the same FERPA law Relatively straight-forward

27. Conclusions Just jump in Key components are the same for “our” FERPA side Accommodate non-FERPA partners’ legal requirements Start with partner’s template if possible Work out the data & exchange details Have each lawyer oversee their piece

28. Contacts & Additional Resources Contact information: Jan R. Kiehne, kiehnej@ct.edu Connie Brooks, Connie.Brooks@iowa.gov Baron Rodriguez, Baron.Rodriguez@aemcorp.com For more information on MOUs: Resource 1: Guidance for Reasonable Methods and Written Agreements (Nov 2011) Resource 2:Checklist: Data Sharing Agreement (Apr 2012)