Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs ): Interstate and Intrastate Agreements

1. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs): Interstate and Intrastate Agreements Jan Kiehne, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (ConnSCU) Connie Brooks, Iowa Department of Education Baron Rodriguez, AEMCorporation Wednesday, February 13, 2013

2. Connecticut

3. Background Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to enable Perkins reporting • 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

4. MOA for Perkins

5. Process for Perkins MOA • Gathered information on Perkins reporting requirements • Reviewed relevant FERPA sections – again • Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements • Drafted MOA • Contacted PTAC • PTAC read and provided feedback via conference call • Reviewed by in-house counsel • Circulated for signatures

6. Background MOA to enable data linkages for P–20W system • Goal: • Create a solid template for participating agency attorneys to modify • Challenges: • Agency attorneys’ lack of familiarity with new FERPA guidelines • Wary State Assistant Attorney Generals • Lack of in-house counsel

7. MOA for P–20W System

8. Process for P–20W System MOA – Phase 1 • Read relevant FERPA sections • Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements • Gathered example MOUsthrough Grads360 • Created a draft • Asked SST contact for review and was referred to PTAC • PTAC read and provided feedback through conference call • Made adjustments • Circulated to participating agency attorneys • Scheduled meeting to review/adjust … finalize …

9. Process for P–20W System MOA – Phase 2 • Agency attorneys reviewed and developed own versions • UCHC Assistant Attorney General got involved and raised larger issues regarding impact of FOIA • Discussions revealed that our model was not entirely accurate in its representation of where PII would flow • More questions to PTAC • More revisions to data sharing agreements • Communicated changes among agency attorneys and Data Governing Board members • Bundled documents for review by State Attorney Generals Office • Status now ….

10. P20 WIN Data Sharing Agreements Main Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs): One MOA for each participating agency Each MOA includes the participating agency, UCHC and BEST Enables the participating agency to participate in the system and share PII only for the purpose of conducting a data match based upon approved data queries Meets written requirements under FERPA for “Audit/Evaluation” exception Query Management Document/Agreement (QMD): One QMD for each data request/query Each QMD will meet the written requirements under FERPA for data sharing agreements that use the “Audit or Evaluation” exception Identifies the “Authorized Representative” to conduct evaluation using the matched data Each agency whose data would be included must sign that they approve before the request can be fulfilled

11. Review of MOA Which MOA would you like to see?

12. Feel Free to Contact Me Jan R. Kiehne, P20 WIN Program Manager Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education 39 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105 860-493-0236; kiehnej@ct.edu www.ctregents.org

13. Iowa

14. IowainContext 2012 Grant creates a collaborative team • K–12 (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

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

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

17. Regents and IDE: FERPA and FERPA Paranoia and Paranoia? Iowa Exceptionality: State law REQUIRES postsecondary institutions to STORE state-generated educational IDs ()

18. Purpose and 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.”

19. 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).

20. Data Destruction One-time reports (e.g., remediation, C11, C12) Process: Replace one-time data with new Original longitudinal storage (enrollment, transfers, awards) Destruction Date = Contract Termination Date Revised longitudinal storage: Replace each year and request full set each year

21. 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 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

22. 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

23. Workforce MOU Specifics Shared ownership of linked datasets May be stored for duration of contract (three years) 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

24. Workforce Postscripts Fully executed within a few weeks once specifics agreed to; 11 months total Process: • IDE provides name, DOB, and 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) New attorney revisiting

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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 verbiage, may not be necessary 

29. Interstate Postscript Attorneys have approved final details Not yet signed, but in the process All working from the same FERPA law Relatively straight-forward

30. 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 and exchange details Have each lawyer oversee his/her piece Interstate, have a facilitator if possible (eScholar)

31. Contacts and 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)