By Susan Gentz
It is often easy for us to get tunnel vision and see only the way things have been done in the past. When it comes to student information systems (SISs), this has always been a district-level conversation, but what if, instead the conversation was elevated to the state level?
How Will Mandating a State SIS Backfire?
Bad Practice:
District superintendents will be calling on you daily if a bill is introduced to require every district in the state to use the same SIS provider. You will have great tension between district leaders and industry leaders. This mandated single SIS approach also does not ultimately even solve the problem. For example, if the problem is the inability to certify data efficiently, having the same SIS does not address the crux of that issue. Because each district has slightly different localized ways of teaching/learning, all SISs must be customizable, even within the same system. These customizations allow SIS providers to serve enough customers to be able to make a healthy business. Therefore, even with a single SIS, the problem that is trying to be solved will still remain an issue. The issue is not conformity among systems or providers, the real issue is the inability to collect data in a uniform way that allows for real-time certification of data.
Additionally, the Superintendents will be quick to inform you that local control matters in education, and taking this decision away from them will bring many conversations to the state house.
Bad Policy:
It has never been in the government’s best interest to start mandating providers—even through proper RFP channels. If we truly believe in the free market, the idea of mandating a provider for any service is, at best, a slippery slope. The state government should not be in the business of evaluating and vetting providers. There are practices and industry standards that have been established that help district leaders to make much more informed decisions than someone who may or may not have the ear of an elected official or office.
States have tried this road, and end up walking it back to allow districts the autonomy to choose the system that best works with their learning models. SIS vendor lock-in has never served any district or state well.
What Should We Do Instead?
Take New Hampshire’s lead. They have already gone to a state solution to address these challenges. In their press release, they state that, “The new data collection system, which was approved by the Governor and Executive Council, will be available to all New Hampshire public schools and districts. NHED’s Division of Education Analytics and Resources is contracting with Alma Technologies, Inc., of Portland, Ore., to purchase and deploy validation tools that any SIS can use, while allowing districts to choose their SIS.”
Additionally, New Hampshire has published a “data dictionary” that is updated in real-time and has numerous testimonials from LEAs that truly appreciate the new system.
There are currently roughly 40% of districts in New Hampshire that utilize Alma SIS, but it isn’t required. School districts will still have autonomy to stay with their current SIS provider or select their own new SIS vendor.
Although not a requirement, there are benefits when districts elect to use Alma SIS alongside Alma’s state-level tools. For example, Alma SIS users have access to data fix shortcuts that navigate the user to the record(s) that are triggering errors.
Alma has an off-the-shelf, configurable solution that reduces expense and time-to-market – it is having a tremendous impact in New Hampshire which used to have similar problems to Iowa. There are also other custom developed solutions that are typically expensive and take 3-4 years to build and implement, but can accomplish similar results.. Iowa has always been a leader in education - let’s let the educators get back to educating and use the time spent on complex data reporting on other pressing matters.
There is a much better solution than a state-mandated student information system. This is where we must rethink what has always been. Let’s flip the conversation - let’s equip the state to use a suite of tools that can accept and normalize data from any source, in real-time. This method creates no backlash from district leaders, creates no bad precedence for mandating systems and providers, and allows the state to solve the actual problem at hand: normalizing and standardizing data reporting at a much lower cost.
Reach out to susan@k20connect.com if your state is looking for a better way to do data reporting - at less burden to the districts and a simplified way for the state.
Comentários