Print

Print


Thanks for replying, Bob.

As I was writing the grant I reached out to every SIS vendor known to operate in the state.  They all gave me estimates of what it would take to implement/activate their SIF agents as part of this project.  All quotes came in around $5k per district.  Based on these quotes, I built money into the grant that can/will be sub-granted to districts to help cover these configuration/implementation costs.  There is a total of $600k earmarked for this purpose statewide.

As soon as we have the implementation vendor contract(s) in place, the next step will be to fully define the initial data elements that will be collected in the initial grant implementation (note: we will be able to expand collection to other elements as we migrate additional data collections to the VADR system in the future).  Once we have these initial elements finalized, districts will work with their SIS vendors to determine the actual cost that it will take to implement/enable SIF (or file extracts for the few systems that are not SIF compliant/certified).  Districts may then apply for funds to help offset these costs out of the $600k sub-grant funds.  We will communicate more details about this as we move forward but I did want to remind all of you that there is money available for this work.

Thanks again,
Brian

PS: There will be more discussions/communications as the project requirements are finalized but it would likely behoove districts to try to negotiate this SIS work as district user groups (e.g. all Powerschool districts; all Infinite Campus districts; all Rediker districts; etc.) with the SIS vendors to try to achieve economies of scale rather than on a district-by-district basis.  Again... we'll discuss further in the very near future.



-----Original Message-----
From: School Information Technology Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Wickberg
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PowerSchool and Vermont State Reporting

I was told by someone at Pearson that there is no Vt state report in Powerschool because Pearson only develops one when someone pays them to do it, usually a state DOE.  So don't expect any Pearson support to help us interface to the VADR when it's ready to receive data unless we pony up. 
Even with SIF, Pearson gave me the licenses to their SIF modules, but then wanted $$ for implementation, so we elected not to pursue using it to synchronize, for instance, our library system to Powerschool, we just do a manual export/import via a CSV file once in a while.

I'm curious when we will be expected to submit data to the VADR, because I should probably put something in my budget for Pearson support for SIF implementation, unless the grant is going to cover that.  I've already had to submit my budget for next year, and didn't think about that.  My recollection is Pearson mentioned a figure like $20k for implementation, that's more than I could just scrape up somewhere...

Bob Wickberg
Technology Coordinator
Brattleboro Union High School District # 6
802-451-3418



School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Thanks, Peter.
>
> 
>
>Good morning, all.
>
> 
>
>What Peter and Ray have discussed here is accurate.  My predecessor 
>(Lisa
>Gauvin) had applied for a "soup-to-nuts" statewide student information 
>system as a big part of the FY09 ARRA Statewide Longitudinal Data 
>Systems grant.  That round of funding had a much larger amount of money 
>available (VT's grant proposal was for roughly $15.7Million) and 
>encompassed linking Early Education to K-12 and K-12 to the 
>Postsecondary and Workforce domains.  To paraphrase the feedback we 
>received from that proposal, VT was not awarded funding under the FY09 
>ARRA SLDS grant opportunity, in part, because of the "very large price 
>tag for such a small state".  Namely, US DOE did not feel as though the 
>SLDS grants were meant to foot the entire bill to buy and implement 
>SISs for every district in the state.
>
> 
>
>This latest round of SLDS grants (the FY12 round) were capped at 
>$5Million.  Vermont was awarded a $4.95Million grant to implement the 
>Vermont Automated Data Reporting (VADR) project.  As Ray mentioned, 
>this project will allow for streamlined reporting from local SISs to 
>the State.  This will be done leveraging the Schools Interoperability 
>Framework (SIF) 3.0 standard as it leverages the US DOE backed Common 
>Education Data Standards (CEDS) 3.0 model.  What this means is that it 
>should not matter which SIS system you are using because, in theory, 
>any of these systems collect/store/report the same elements.  Each 
>vendor's system (in the education domain/industry) is capable of being 
>aligned/mapped to the Common Education Data Standards.  Some vendors 
>have already mapped their data models to CEDS/SIF and others will be 
>mapped as part of this project.  Obviously, those that are already 
>mapped will make the implementations for those districts using their 
>system quite a bit easier.  As Ray and Peter have mentioned, it does 
>not make sense to try to implement vendor-specific state reporting on a 
>vendor-by-vendor basis given that all SISs will be leveraging the 
>automated reporting that will come along with VADR over the next couple of years.
>
> 
>
>I will also add that, to my knowledge, we have not been engaged by any 
>vendor directly regarding the implementation of their proprietary state 
>reporting modules.  This likely hasn't happened because the state does 
>not contract directly with these vendors and there is more money to be 
>made if they pursue work with you on a  district-by-district basis.
>Vendor statements that insinuate that VT AOE has been resistant to 
>conversations that have not taken place would be inaccurate.
>
> 
>
>Regardless, having received the SLDS grant this time will allow us to 
>work with all district SISs to automate much of the reporting that you 
>do to the state.  We will be communicating more about the VADR project 
>as soon as we have signed vendor contracts in place and will work with 
>you all to ensure the system provides you with as much value as possible.
>
> 
>
>Thanks,
>
>Brian
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>Brian Townsend | IT Director | Vermont Agency of Education
>
>
>
>
>120 State St | Montpelier,VT 05620-2501 | (:802.828.6575| : 
>802.828-1444
>| *:[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>From: Drescher, Peter
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:26 PM
>To: 'School Information Technology Discussion'
>Cc: Townsend, Brian
>Subject: RE: PowerSchool and Vermont State Reporting
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>Here I am .... enlightening.....maybe.      ;0)))
>
> 
>
>But seriously.... yes, that is correct.  When Lisa Gauvin was our AOE 
>IT director she worked hard on a pretty comprehensive grant that we did not
>get.   Since then, Brian Townsend has taken the helm at IT and he worked
>on the successful grant that we have now for 5.1 mill.    That grant is
>being used to move forward this concept that Ray has referred to here 
>as VADR.  It is a longitudinal data system and it should work as Ray
>mentioned with a variety of SIF compliant systems.   It is a system that
>should alleviate many of the issues that Chris Moody was alluding to in 
>his original post.  The reason, (I believe) that we have not moved 
>forward on fixing the issue at this point is that by the time that fix 
>would be put into place, the new system should be up and running.. so, 
>instead of taking things down and apart twice, the idea is to wait and 
>do it all at once.
>
> 
>
>Brian  is out on leave but he occasionally checks in on the list here and
>he might be able to give some further detail on the posting.   
>
> 
>
>Thanks...
>
> 
>
>Peter
>
> 
>
>Peter Drescher
>
>Education Technology Coordinator
>
>Vermont Agency of Education
>
>Integrated Support for Learning Division
>
>120 State St. 
>
>Montpelier, VT  05620
>
>Ph.: 802.828.5149
>
>FAX: 802.828.0573
>
>[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]
>
>Twitter:  formerly: VTDOE_EdTech
>
>Now: VTED_Technology
>
> 
>
>From: School Information Technology Discussion [[ 
>mailto:[log in to unmask] ]mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>Of Jarrett-CESU, Steve
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:30 AM
>To: [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: PowerSchool and Vermont State Reporting
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>I believe that the state tried to get a grant a few years ago to 
>implement a statewide student management system, but did not get an 
>award.  Peter Drescher can probably enlighten...?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>Steve Jarrett
>
>
>
>
>District Technology Supervisor
>
>
>
>
>Chittenden East Supervisory Union
>
>
>
>
>802-858-1729
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Christopher Moody <[ 
>mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>I was talking with our PowerSchool rep about another issue and I 
>touched on where the reporting module for Vermont was at. Most states 
>have a working module and it would make things so much better if we 
>weren't exporting uploading data by hand. He says that the resistance 
>has been from the Vermont side in getting the module operational and 
>that Vermont has been tossing around different ideas, such as a state 
>wide SIS (I haven't heard that, maybe I am behind the times).
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>Anyone have the scoop on what is going on? If nothing else, I'd like to 
>voice support in getting Pearson's state reporting module going.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Chris Moody
>
>
>
>
>Director of Technology
>
>
>
>
>Springfield School District
>
>
>
>
>[ tel:802-885-7921 ]802-885-7921
>
>
>
>
>[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family 
>Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If this e-mail contains 
>student information and you are not entitled to access such information 
>under FERPA, please notify the sender. Federal regulations require that 
>you destroy this e-mail without reviewing it and you may not forward it 
>to anyone.
>