1 / 14

John Kraman , Oklahoma SDE Nancy J. Smith, DataSmith Solutions Thursday, 2/14/2013

26th Annual Management Information Systems [MIS] Conference. John Kraman , Oklahoma SDE Nancy J. Smith, DataSmith Solutions Thursday, 2/14/2013. Oklahoma Data Pipeline Project Needs Assessment Survey: Process and Findings. Oklahoma Landscape. 670,000 overall enrollment 537 districts

arella
Download Presentation

John Kraman , Oklahoma SDE Nancy J. Smith, DataSmith Solutions Thursday, 2/14/2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 26th Annual Management Information Systems [MIS] Conference John Kraman, Oklahoma SDENancy J. Smith, DataSmith SolutionsThursday, 2/14/2013 Oklahoma Data Pipeline Project Needs Assessment Survey: Process and Findings

  2. Oklahoma Landscape • 670,000 overall enrollment • 537 districts • Range between 40 and 40,000+ in enrollment • State law forced switch in 2011 to a centralized IT • OMES versus SDE • WAVE, EWIS, EDFacts, upcoming projects 2

  3. Needs Assessment Survey • Electronic survey of all districts • Disseminated by SDE and CCOSA • Open September – December 2012 • Six Sections: • Technology • Data standards and documentation • Data-related training • Data governance • Communication • Financial – staff, resources, costs 3

  4. Follow-up Engagement • Voluntary participation via • Follow-up phone calls • Follow-up emails • In-person focus groups • Two focus groups in late November • Included superintendents and technology staff • In-person in Oklahoma City, not at SEA 4

  5. Participation in Survey • Responses from 259 of 537 districts (48.2%) • 184 provided district name • 173 distinct districts (multiple responses from 11 districts) • 108 superintendents (out of 175 who provided role or title) • District Size of 173 districts: • 0-500 = 72 respondents • 501-1,000 = 44 • 1,001-5,000 = 44 • 5,001-10,000 = 7 • >10,000 = 6 5

  6. Technology • Trouble uploading or submitting files: • WAVE: 62%sometimes or frequently (122) • EDFacts: 44%sometimes or frequently (108) • Problems center on • Confusing error messages (65%, n=122) • Delays with submission (51%, n=95) • Data or file correction process (65% n=155) • Areas that rarely or never cause problems • data element formatting (19%, n=36) • file size limits (15%, n=29) • interoperability standards and processes (12%, n=23) 6

  7. Data Standards and Documentation Clarity of documentation about • File submission: 38% good or excellent (77) • File formatting: 36% good or excellent (73) • File due dates: 36% good or excellent (83) Usefulness of documentation about • File submission: 53% useful or very useful (107) • File formatting: 52% useful or very useful (104) • File due dates: 53% useful or very useful (107) Ease of access to documentation about • File submission: 34% easy or very easy (68) • File formatting: 34% easy or very easy (67) • File due dates: 33% easy or very easy (67) 7

  8. Data Related Training 8

  9. Data Governance • 95% of respondents indicated that they don’t participate in SDE data governance or advisory committees (190) • 76% are unaware of SDE data governance activities (151) • 63% indicated their districts have designated data stewards responsible for specific elements (124) • 43% indicated that their districts have a designated data coordinator (83) 9

  10. Communication re: Data Requirements • 56% find current communication informative (107) • 52%: helpful (99) • 51%: disseminated to right people (95) • 43%: clear (82) • 41%: frequent enough (78) • 37%: detailed enough (71) • 34%: timely (66) 10

  11. Financial and Resources Biggest concerns • Enough staff to manage collections 82% (154) • Time & resources for file creation, 68% (124) validation & submission • Data quality 62%(115) • Sustaining resources for district SIS 61% (112) 11

  12. Financial and Resources “What services or resources do you wish SDE could provide to reduce your costs?” • 44%: Improved access to SDE data and reports (n=83) • 38%: A statewide SIS (n=71) • 35%: Improved interface or portal for use with file uploads (n=65) 12

  13. Synopsis • Better management of existing processes and documentation • Better communication, specifically about changes to data requirements, new tools, and upcoming plans • Fewer last minute changes to collections • Do a few things well rather than trying to do lots of big changes at once • More transparency about processes and governance • More engagement from field to ensure process and communication management meets LEA needs and understanding • Partnership and clear definition of roles and responsibilities between SDE, OMES and LEAs 13

  14. SDE Response and Plans • Data Governance Committees • Update roles and responsibilities between SDE and OMES • More internal capacity around data at SDE • ??? 14

More Related