NE Data Systems Legislative Study

31 July 2014
NEBRASKA EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS
LEGISLATIVE STUDY
Developed in Response to Legislative Resolution 264

Nebraska Education Data Systems Legislative Study iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface....................................................................................................................................................1
Foreword from the Commissioner...........................................................................................................2
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 3-4
Assessment of the Current Education Data System.....................................................5-8
Assessment Methodology................................................................................................................... 5-8
State Data Systems..........................................................................................................9-13
Accountability Requirements............................................................................................................ 9-11
Systems to Support Accountability.......................................................................................................11
Additional State Systems................................................................................................................ 12-13
District Data Systems............................................................................................................................13
Findings...........................................................................................................................14-27
Availability of Systems.................................................................................................................... 13-17
NETA Teaching and Learning Responses.............................................................................................18
System Need................................................................................................................................... 18-19
Student Information Systems................................................................................................................20
System Cost and Accountability Burden........................................................................................ 20-21
Likelihood of Participating.....................................................................................................................22
Data Use Perceptions...........................................................................................................................22
Survey and Focus Group Conclusions............................................................................................ 23-24
ESU Data Systems.......................................................................................................................... 24-25
Assessment of Current Education Data Systems.................................................................................25
Adequacy for Reporting........................................................................................................................25
Level of Integration................................................................................................................................26
Adequacy of Staff..................................................................................................................................26
Adequacy to Support Instructional Improvement Initiatives........................................................... 26-27
Costs of the Education Data Systems..................................................................................................27
Current Performance on DQC’s 10 Essential Elements for Effective Data Use..........28
Summary of Current Data System Challenges................................................................29
Future Vision..................................................................................................................30-34
The Role of the State Education Agency in Promoting Continuous Improvement...............................34
Recommendations........................................................................................................ 35-37
1, 3, and 5 Year Roadmap............................................................................................. 38-39

iv Nebraska Education Data Systems Legislative Study
Financial Investments and Returns............................................................................. 40-41
Budget Request for Investment............................................................................................................40
Estimated Financial Returns.................................................................................................................40
Reduced Accountability Costs..............................................................................................................40
Reduced Technology Costs for Districts...............................................................................................41
Return on Investment............................................................................................................................41
Recommended Roadmap Meets the Needs and Priorities of Nebraska...............42-45
Appendices....................................................................................................................47-89
Appendix A: Study Contributors...........................................................................................................48
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms....................................................................................................... 49-50
Commonly Used Acronyms..................................................................................................................50
Appendix C: Description of Systems.............................................................................................. 51-54
Teaching and Learning Systems.............................................................................................. 51-52
Administrative Systems........................................................................................................... 52-53
Back Office Systems.....................................................................................................................54
Appendix D: Survey of District Leaders.......................................................................................... 55-74
Appendix E: Survey of NETA Membership...................................................................................... 75-84
Appendix F: References........................................................................................................................85
Appendix G: Legislative Resolution 264...............................................................................................86
Appendix H: Complete Budget Estimate........................................................................................ 87-89

Nebraska Education Data Systems Legislative Study 1
PREFACE
The One Hundred Third Legislature passed Legislative Resolution 264 whose purpose is stated as
follows:
The purpose of this resolution is to examine the education data system. The study
shall include an assessment of the adequacy of the current data system maintained by
the State Department of Education to provide timely access to relevant and accurate
data to meet various needs, including information for teachers in public schools about
student achievement in their classrooms, objective research regarding educational
practices, data for policy formation and review, and accountability to the public
regarding the performance of the public schools.
The study contained in this document was developed in response to LR 264 to include, but not be
limited to, the following topics:
1. The costs of the data system;
2. Legislative access and public access to the department’s data system;
3. The role and inter-relationships between the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System, the
Consolidated Data System, the State of the Schools Report, and the Statewide Longitudinal
Data System as developed pursuant to federal grant funding;
4. Timeliness and access to financial information related to school spending, budgets, taxes, and
state aid;
5. Adequacy of school staff data in the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System in relation
to teacher and classified staff qualifications, assignments, degree level, college credits, and
experience; and
6. Any other issue related to the education data system that the study committee deems important.
The Commissioner of Education, Dr. Matt Blomstedt, further directed that, based upon the assessment
of the current data system, the study make specific recommendations and propose a high-level one,
three and five year plan to improve, upgrade, and modernize the Nebraska Education Data System to
meet the needs of Nebraska’s public education system.
The study of Nebraska education data systems gathered information on three types of systems
(Teaching and Learning, Administrative, and Back Office) as well as the cost and effort associated
with data and accountability submissions. Superintendents and technology educators were invited
to participate in a survey of system availability and importance. The Nebraska Council of School
Administrators (NCSA) recommended district leaders to participate in virtual focus groups on each
system type. The NCSA also recommended district financial personnel to participate in individual
interviews detailing the cost associated with education systems and data submission in their districts.
Specific briefings and interviews were held with NCSA, the Nebraska State Education Association
(NSEA), the Education Service Unit Coordinating Council (ESUCC), and Nebraska Department of
Education (NDE) leaders. Over 200 education leaders in Nebraska participated in the study.

2 Nebraska Education Data Systems Legislative Study
FOREWORD FROM THE COMMISSIONER
MATTHEW L. BLOMSTEDT, PH.D.
Nebraska is committed to improve the achievement outcomes for all students. To this end, the
Nebraska Department of Education is committed to a process of continuous improvement. This will
require us to embrace continuously evolving best practices throughout the system of education, and
require the active involvement of all of Nebraska’s education leaders and professionals. In this context,
our education data systems play a key role to:
1. Provide measures of achievement outcomes to guide the continuous improvement process; and
2. Put relevant information in the hands of those educators that day-by-day can positively influence
instruction.
In commissioning this study pursuant to LR 264, I directed that the study take a broad view of education
across the state – one that is not about accountability alone, but about the myriad possible and positive
uses of information being collected. We have to build an education data system that interacts with the
goals of the state; the goals for the district; the goals of individual students.
Moreover, I directed that the study carefully consider the entire “system of education” and develop
a cohesive vision and plan as to the Nebraska Education Data System required to best serve that
vision. When I think about what the whole system has to look like, ultimately, it has to have a system of
supports that are going to give the teacher the best opportunity to succeed. The “system of education”
necessarily spans NDE, the ESUs, the districts, students and parents, as well as the broader set of
legislative and community stakeholders.
In this vision, NDE is part of the system, not top of a hierarchy. I tasked the study to consider the
changing role of NDE and how best the state can lead, facilitate, collaborate, and enable the districts to
provide the very best education to our kids while preserving their autonomy to innovate, their ability to
choose, while ensuring technology is uniformly available across districts large and small.
I would like to recognize the organizations that co-sponsored this report: Educational Service Unit
Coordinating Council, Nebraska Council of School Administrators, and the Nebraska State Education
Association. In addition, I would like to thank the over 200 people from these organizations and from the
ESUs, districts, and Nebraska Education Technology Association that contributed their time to provide
input to this study.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nebraska spends an estimated $100 million annually for technology systems, software systems,
and accountability data submissions by the public school districts and the Nebraska Department of
Education (NDE).
The NDE systems and applications are largely focused on satisfying Federal and State accountability
reporting requirements and do not directly contribute to supporting teaching and learning. The
districts submit annual collections of data to support accountability to the state using a combination
of automated and manual methods. An estimated 655,200 hours are spent by districts preparing the
required collections for each year’s accountability data submission.
Each district has selected its own set of administrative, teaching and learning, and back office
applications. There is a wide difference in the number of applications that are available in small districts
versus larger districts due to budget, staff, and capability disparities. The student information system
(SIS) is the single most important application for districts, supporting the day-to-day operation of
schools, typically requiring a major investment in licensing, infrastructure, support and professional
development. Outside of Nebraska’s largest districts, the tools are poorly integrated, there is little
support for data-driven decision making, and modern tools are not available to support instructional
improvement necessary for the state’s education initiatives of blended learning, teacher and principal
evaluation, career readiness, and education intelligence.
Nebraska’s network of Educational Service Units (ESUs), the ESU Coordinating Council (ESUCC), and
Network Nebraska are all contributing to improving the capabilities and the efficiencies of the data
systems for the districts. However, the capabilities and support provided by the ESUs varies across the
state. Additional capacity is needed.
The vision recommended by the study is a statewide data system that builds long-term capacity, efficacy
and efficiency in the system of education. The study makes the following recommendations:
1. Ensure security, privacy, transparency, and the proper use of data the core of the Nebraska
Education Data System implementation.
2. Unify the accountability data collection requirements into the Nebraska Education Data System
to minimize the reporting burden on districts.
3. Require application vendors and other sources to provide data in a standard form specified by
NDE directly into the Nebraska Education Data Standard (NEDS).
4. Leverage and strengthen Nebraska’s ESU network, the ESUCC, and Network Nebraska to host,
maintain, and sustain the Nebraska Education Data System, to support a statewide virtual help
desk, and to train the educators in it is use.
5. Leverage the state-level market to influence vendors, negotiate lower prices through
competition, provide consistent functions and pricing across large and small districts, and
expand the number and quality of instructional applications.
6. Invest in providing education intelligence - access to actionable insight - through a warehouse,
business intelligence tools, and increased internal capacity for districts, policy makers, and
researchers.
7. Invest in an integrated data system that spans the districts, the ESUs, and NDE to support
continuous education improvement.

8. Integrate staff data from district and state data sources, link teachers to student performance
and success, and add additional data to better support teacher evaluation and professional
development.
9. Invest in the licensing, integration and training of an Instructional Improvement System that is
cost-effective for districts of all sizes.
10. Develop the staff and processes necessary to sustain the Nebraska Education Data System.
The proposed implementation builds upon pilot activities funded by the State’s $4.3 million Statewide
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) grant and scheduled for SY 2015. The system leverages the Ed-
Fi data standard and set of royalty-free technologies. The Ed-Fi standard is directly aligned to the
U.S. Department of Education Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and is in various stages of
implementations in 22 states.
The proposed implementation roadmap for the Nebraska Education Data System estimates a three year
investment of $41,960,110, roughly evenly split across the three years. The rollout plan targets a phase
in process over three years that could include 50 districts the first year, 150 the second year, and 245
during the third year.
The primary benefits from the recommended investments will come from a greatly improved instructional
system that improves student performance leading to greater student success. However the proposed
approach also results in cost savings and efficiencies that will also provide a financial return from
substantially-reduced accountability costs and from reduced technology costs to districts. The
projected cumulative net return for the investment over five years is $44.8 million.

ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT EDUCATION
DATA SYSTEM
The Nebraska education data systems are organized as follows:
• The Nebraska Department of Education fields a set of applications at the state level largely
focused on State and Federal accountability.
• Each district has its own set of administrative, teaching and learning, and back office
applications for “operating” the business of education with the district. The districts submit
annual collections of data to support accountability to the state using a combination of
automated and manual methods.
This section provides an overview of state and district education data systems and assessment of
their capacity and capabilities to support future Nebraska education needs, as directed by Legislative
Resolution 264 (LR 264). The complete text of LR 264 is available in Appendix G.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This study investigated the ecosystem of data and technology systems in Nebraska. The study sought
input from educators across at the state, ESU, district, and classroom level. In addition to an inventory
of existing systems and data collections, the study participants revealed their vision for students in
Nebraska, how data and technology might assist in that vision, and the obstacles that systemic change
may help overcome. Ultimately, nearly 200 education leaders in Nebraska participated in the study,
representing over 80% of the students in the state. Figure 1 below illustrates the process of soliciting
and interpreting feedback on the state technology and data ecosystem.
Figure 1:
Assessment Methodology Framework
Technical
Assessments
Stakeholder
Input
Teaching and Learning
Recommended Roadmap
Legislative Study
Overview
Back Office
Administrative
Gather
Data
Conduct
Analyses
Evaluate
Options
Develop
New Resources
Offer Direction
and Feedback
Provide
Background Data
Develop
Goals
Prioritize
Options
Veriﬁcation and Engagement Dialogue
State
Educators
ESUs Districts Classrooms

All district superintendents were invited to participate in a survey of system availability and importance.
The survey introduced the concept of three types of systems: Teaching and Learning, Administrative,
and Back Office. Superintendents reported whether their districts had a system in place, or whether
their staff were performing the functions as described manually (or not at all). They were asked about
the importance of each system. The combination of system presence (or absence) and perceived
importance paints an emerging picture of districts’ most-pressing needs. The superintendents reported
their opinion on the need for data to inform upcoming strategic initiatives in the schools and districts,
and their likelihood of participating in state or ESU-led systems if offered. The survey also asked
district leaders to estimate high-level cost and employee effort associated with data and accountability
submissions.
The Nebraska Council of School Administrators (NCSA) and NSEA recommended district leaders to
participate in virtual focus groups on each system type. The study also conducted focus groups with
members from the Nebraska Education Technology Association (NETA) and the Educational Service
Units (ESU). In total, 40 educators participated in-conversations on their existing systems and priorities.
The focus group protocol built on findings from the survey. These conversations provided an opportunity
for deeper conversation about the existing systems’ features and interoperability. These district leaders
also expounded on the survey respondents reported likelihood of participation, describing the conditions
under which their districts might be likely to join statewide systems. The NCSA also recommended
district financial personnel to participate in individual interviews detailing the cost associated with
education systems and data submission in their districts.
The study engaged NCSA, NSEA, ESUCC, and NDE leaders throughout the process to help form
the study methodology and interpret the findings. The groups also provided feedback on preliminary
versions of the report. More information is available on contributing study participants in Appendix A.
The study classified the districts by number of students in order to better understand the nuance
of districts’ experience with information systems and accountability submissions. The three largest
districts, Omaha Public Schools, Lincoln Public Schools, and Millard Public Schools are classified as
Very Large. These three represent 37% of the student population in Nebraska. Large districts are those
with student counts between 3,000 and 10,000. Medium districts are those with student populations
between 590 and 3,000 students; this grouping was informed in part by those districts that self-identify
as “mid-size” in the Schools Taking Action for Nebraska Children’s Education (STANCE) Coalition. Small
districts are those under 590 students but above 250. Very Small districts are those with less than 250
students. Figure 2 below shows the percent of total students in Nebraska represented by each of the
size classifications above. Figure 2: Percent of Total Students Represented by Group

Leaders from all districts were invited to respond to an online survey of Nebraska educational data
systems. The complete survey is available in Appendix D. Of 249 public districts in Nebraska, 163
districts responded to the survey, representing 65% of districts. This sample size is strong enough to
produce a level of confidence above 95%. Each district size grouping (e.g., Very Small) was represented
by at least 58% of its districts. This is represented in Figure 3 below. In total, districts representing 77%
of the student population participated in the study in some form.
Figure 2: Percent of Total Students
Represented by Group
Very Small
(83 Districts)
14,581
Medium
(52 Districts)
Large
(15 Districts)
Small
(96 Districts)
Very Large
(3 Districts)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
13%
37%
19%
27%
5%
38,009
58,365
81,390
110, 897
PercentofTotalStudents
1
When the study was conducted, there were 249 districts in Nebraska. As of July 1, 2014 there are 245 districts.
The study will reference the 249 sample size; future recommendations plan for 245.

PercentofDistrictsResponding
Figure 3: Response Rate
by Size Classiﬁcation
Very Small
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Medium LargeSmall Very Large
58%
67% 67%69%
87%
Figure 4: Response Rate by ESU
0-10%
11-20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
51-60%
61-70%
71-80%
81-90%
91-100%
ESU Headquarters
ESU 1, Wakeﬁeld
ESU 2, Fremont
ESU 3, Omaha
ESU 4, Auburn
ESU 5, Beatrice
ESU 6, Milford
ESU 7, Columbus
ESU 8, Neligh
ESU 9, Hastings
ESU 10, Kearney
ESU 11, Holdrege
ESU 13, Scottsbluff
ESU 15, Trenton
ESU 16, Ogallala
ESU 17, Ainsworth
ESU 18, Lincoln
ESU 19, Omaha
44%
63%
62%
100%
59%
80%
75%
46%
94%
78%
100%
100%
75%
62%
29% 80% 55%
Each ESU was also
well-represented in the
survey responses. ESU
2 and ESU 17 were the
most represented, as
shown in Figure 4 below.

STATE DATA SYSTEMS
ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
The data collected by the state for accountability is driven by Federal and State legislation. Figure 5
shows the Federal, State and NDE reporting requirements and the systems developed to support these
requirements.
Figure 5: Accountability Collections
Federal Level
Requirements
State Level
Requirements
NDE Requirements
from Districts
Systems Developed
to Support
Requirements
EDEN/EDFacts
CCD Fiscal
CCD Nonfiscal
CSPR
CRDC
State of the Schools
Report
Data Report System
NePAS
Annual Financial
Reports
NSSRS
CDC
AFR
School Accreditation
and Approval
NSSRS/eScholar
CDC system
AFR Online
GMS
Child Nutrition system
Special Education ILCD
NDE Teacher Cert.
System
NPERS
A new US Department of Education web site (http://datainventory.ed.gov/ ) describes all data reported to
the Department of Education, with the exception of personnel and administrative data. It includes data
collected as part of grant activities, along with statistical data collected to allow publication of valuable
statistics about the state of education in this country. The ED Data Inventory includes descriptive
information about each data collection, along with information on the specific data elements in individual
collections.
The most significant Federal reporting requirements are as follows:
• EDEN/EDFacts. EDFacts is a U. S. Department of Education initiative to put performance data
at the center of policy, management and budget decisions for all K-12 educational programs.
EDFacts centralizes performance data supplied by K-12 state education agencies (SEAs) with
other data assets, such as financial grant information, within the Department to enable better
analysis and use in policy development, planning and management.
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html)
• CCD Fiscal. The Common Core of Data (CCD) is a program of the U.S. Department of
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics that annually collects fiscal and non-fiscal
data about all public schools, public school districts and state education agencies in the United
States. The data are supplied by state education agency officials and include information that
describes schools and school districts, including name, address, and phone number; descriptive
information about students and staff, including demographics; and fiscal data, including
revenues. (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp)

• CCD Nonfiscal. The primary purpose of the State Nonfiscal Survey Public Elementary/
Secondary Education Survey is: to provide basic information on public elementary and
secondary school students and staff for each state, the District of Columbia, and the outlying
territories with a U.S. relationship. State Education Agencies have one year to revise this data.
Each year, we put out a revised file approximately one year after the original file is released.
(http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stNfis.asp )
• CSPR. The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is the required annual reporting tool
for of each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 9303 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended.
(http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html )
• CRDC. The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC collects data on key education and civil rights
issues in our nation’s public schools. CRDC collects a variety of information including, student
enrollment and educational programs and services, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited
English proficiency and disability. CRDC used for administering and enforcing the civil rights
statutes for which it is responsible. (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html )
At the state level, the following Nebraska public reporting requirements are supported:
• State of the Schools Report. The State of the Schools Report, an annual report, provides
information and data about Nebraska public schools and student performance. The report
highlights the performance of students by district and school building in reading, mathematics,
writing and science. The report summarizes Nebraska State Accountability (NeSA) test results by
subpopulations of students. (http://reportcard.education.ne.gov/ )
• Data Reporting System. The Data Reporting System (DRS) provides student achievement
results for the state, school districts and individual school buildings. The DRS also displays
federal accountability results, student characteristics data, early childhood education data,
career education data, special population data, and education staff data in three main content
areas, Quick Facts, Guided Inquiry, and Advanced Inquiry.
(http://drs.education.ne.gov/Pages/default.aspx )
• NePAS (Nebraska Performance Accountability System). The State Board of Education
and Nebraska Department of Education staff developed a state accountability system as
required by state law 79-760.06 called Nebraska Performance Accountability Systems. In August
2012, the State Board of Education adopted NePAS, which is based on student scale scores
within grades, buildings and districts. The system is intended to inform educators, parents,
school board members, community members and policymakers about the learning progress of
Nebraska schools and school districts.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/assessment/NePAS.html)
• Annual Financial Reports. AFR data and other financial information is publically available for
ESUs and school districts at http://www.education.ne.gov/FOS/Index.html .

In addition, NDE must respond to public data requests. Pursuant to the Nebraska public records laws,
the Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) will provide access to or copies of NDE records upon
written request, unless the records are specifically required to be kept confidential or the records are
permitted to be kept confidential.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/nssrs/docs/Nebraska_Data_Policy_December_2010.pdf)
To satisfy these Federal and State accountability requirements, NDE requires districts to submit data
annually for the following:
• NSSRS. The Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS) is the Nebraska Department
of Education’s primary method of data collection from Nebraska public districts. Refer to NSSRS
through the Years for details of how the system has evolved. Data collected via NSSRS will be
used for state and federal reporting - including the State of the Schools Report (http://reportcard.
education.ne.gov) and Data Reporting System (http://drs.education.ne.gov)
• Consolidated Data Collection. The Consolidated Data Collection (CDC) is a system
designed to collect data for Federal and State reporting that is not collected through the
Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS). CDC is a data collection available on the
NDE Portal. The NDE Portal is available via a link on the NDE homepage: www.nde.state.ne.us or
by directly accessing the link: (http://portal.nde.state.ne.us)
• Annual Financial Report (AFR Reporting). District financial data and audit information is
collected annually from school districts. In addition, district’s narratives are submitted describing
Limited English Proficiency Programs, Poverty Programs, and expenditures for ARRA Funds. The
AFR Online system accepts the data submitted in standardized Excel spreadsheets.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/FOS/SchoolFinance/AFR/ )
SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT ACCOUNTABILITY
To support the data collection and reporting cycle, NDE maintains the following systems
• NSSRS / eScholar, included Student Unique Identifier. The unique identification of
students across time and location has been identified by the Data Quality Campaign and in the
America COMPETES Act as a fundamental element of an effective Longitudinal Data System
Without unique identification of students, any analysis of an individual’s program participation,
academic or related history becomes virtually impossible to undertake.
(http://www.escholar.com/documents/Selecting%20Uniq-ID%20Systems%20for%20
Students%20-%20mb20090831.pdf)
• Consolidated Data Collection. The Consolidated Data Collection (CDC) is a system
designed to collect data for Federal and State reporting that is not collected through the
Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS). CDC is a data collection available on the
NDE Portal. The NDE Portal is available via a link on the NDE homepage: www.nde.state.ne.us or
by directly accessing the link: (http://portal.nde.state.ne.us)
• AFR Online. The AFR Online system accepts financial data submitted in standardized Excel
spreadsheets by districts. AFR Online is available through the NDE Portal. (http://www.
education.ne.gov/FOS/SchoolFinance/AFR/ )
• School Accreditation and Approval. Accredited schools must comply with 92NAC 10, the
rules and regulations which govern standards and procedures for the accreditation of all public
schools and any nonpublic schools that request state accreditation. Districts/schools may also
choose to be accredited by the AdvancED/North Central Association. Approved schools must
comply with 92 NAC 14 the rules and regulations which govern standards and procedures for the
approval and legal operation of all non-accredited nonpublic schools in the state.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/APAC/)

ADDITIONAL STATE SYSTEMS
Additional systems are maintained in areas where there is joint involvement of the state and districts:
• Grants Management System (GMS). The GMS is a web-based system used by the
Department for processing various grants and plans. The system supports application
submissions, amendments, and approval as well as the issuance of grant award notifications.
The system also supports the processing of payments against grant awards through
reimbursement requests. A majority of grants continue to be placed on the GMS which has
become the principal method for processing Department issued grants.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/gms2/index.html )
• Child Nutrition System. The Child Nutrition System administers the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) - a federally assisted meal program. Based upon income eligibility guidelines,
children at participating schools are eligible for free or reduced price lunches.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/ns/index.html )
• Special Education (ILCD). The Improving Learning for Children with Disabilities (ILCD)
process has the following objectives: 1.to identify gaps between current results and desired
outcomes; 2. to facilitate the development of improvement strategies at the district level; 3. to
document the implementation of federal and state laws and regulations; and 4. to document
positive outcomes for children with disabilities. It is a partnership between the NDE Special
Education Office and Nebraska’s School Districts to gather data, analyze results, identify gaps
with both Part B and Part C services, rate district performance, stimulate the development of
improvement strategies, and develop and implement improvement strategies for the district.
The ILCD process relies on multiple sources of data (including, but not limited to: parent/staff
surveys, functional outcomes, graduation rates, drop-out rates, student file reviews, performance
of students with disabilities on state-wide and local assessments) to gauge the effectiveness
of special education supports and services for children and youth with disabilities. The ILCD
system that displays district data around eight Inquiries including self-assessment ratings by the
districts. (http://www.education.ne.gov/SPED/index.html )
• Nebraska Department of Education Teacher Certification System. The Nebraska
Department of Education defines the requirements and offers Teaching, Administrative, and
Special Services certificates/permits. NDE also approves Teacher Preparation Programs. A web
site is maintained to assist current and aspiring educators. The Teacher Certification System
allows teachers to apply, renew, or update their certification online.
(http://www.education.ne.gov/tcert/index.html )
• Nebraska Public Employees Retirement System (NPERS). The Nebraska Public
Employees Retirement Systems (NPERS), under the direction of the Public Employees
Retirement Board (PERB), administers several statewide retirement systems and one deferred
compensation plan for the State of Nebraska. All five mandatory retirement plans are
governmental plans as defined under Internal Revenue Code § 414(d) and 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32)
[i.e. ERISA § 3(32)]. The voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (DCP) is instituted under IRC §
457(b). NPERS carries out its mission from one location in Lincoln, Nebraska. The five mandatory
plans NPERS administers are for State, County, School, Judges and Patrol employees. The
voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan is administered primarily for State, Judges, and State
Patrol employees, however County employees are eligible to participate if their county does not
offer a voluntary plan. (http://npers.ne.gov/SelfService/ )

NDE is developing a new Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS (P-20)) to support the
long term reporting and analytics needs of both NDE and the districts. “Better decisions require better
information” is the principle that lies at the heart of the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS)
Grant Program. Through grants and a growing range of services and resources, the program has helped
propel the successful design, development, implementation, and expansion of K12 and P-20W (early
learning through the workforce) longitudinal data systems. The Ed-Fi data standard and set of Ed-Fi
technologies are available from the Ed-Fi Alliance (www.ed-fi.org ) without licensing fees. Nebraska
is piloting an Ed-Fi transactional operational data store that directly receives data from the SIS. Data
from the ODS is used to populate a longitudinal data warehouse and a set of student performance
dashboards for teachers and school administrators. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/)
See Nebraska SLDS Grant:
(http://www.education.ne.gov/DataServices/PDF/Statewide_Longitudinal_Data_Systems.pdf)

DISTRICT DATA SYSTEMS
Types of Systems
The study identified three types of systems: Teaching and Learning systems, Administrative systems,
and Back Office systems. These are presented in Figure 6 below. A chief distinction among the groups
is the primary user. Teaching and Learning systems are tools that inform the daily efforts of teachers
including: planning lessons, delivering content, assessing students’ understanding, differentiating
instruction, and reflecting on data to inform decisions. Administrative systems are geared to school
leaders – principals and specialists – to manage the operations of schools and student information.
Back Office systems are those systems used primarily by district administrative personnel responsible
for financial information, human resources, and procurement. A complete description of each system is
available in Appendix C.
Figure 6: Education Data Systems
Teaching and
Learning Systems
Administrative Systems Back Office Systems
• Data Management
• Student Centric
Assessment Tool
• Learning Management
System – Teacher centric
• Professional
Development
• Educator Evaluation
• Content Management
• Progress Monitoring/
Response to Intervention
System
• Credit Recovery
• Career Readiness
• Student Information
System
• Test Analysis
• Transportation
• Nutrition Management
• IEP Management
• Guidance and
Counseling
• Library Management
• Finance System
• Human Resource
System
• Procurement
• Substitute Management

FINDINGS
AVAILABILITY OF SYSTEMS
Districts reported an average of 8.4 digital systems out of a possible 20 identified, as shown in Figure 7
below. The average number of systems declined with each size grouping. Very Large districts reported
an average of 17 digital systems; Very Small districts reported an average of 7.3 digital systems.
Figure 7: Average Number of
Digital Systems By Group Size
0 5 10 15 20
Very Small
Medium
Large
Small
Very Large
Average # of
Teaching and
Learning Systems
Average # of
Back Office
Systems
Average # of
Administrative
Systems
3.1 1.1 3.1
3.0 1.4 3.3
3.8 2.1 3.7
3.8 3.2 4.7
7.0 3.5 6.5
Reported Systems
By system type, nearly all districts reported the presence of administrative and back office tools. Nearly
all of the districts reported having a digital Student Information System, Finance system, and Library
Management System.

The ESUs surveyed generally have more uniform availability of systems, as shown below in Figure 8.
The districts reported a general lack of tools and therefore significant manual effort in the Teaching and
Learning category. The processes districts most frequently report performing manually are Progress
Monitoring (RTI), Educator Evaluation, and Transportation. Over half of districts reported having no
system, even for manually collecting and distributing data, for Test Analysis, Substitute Management,
and Professional Development. Figure 9 depicts the system availability for each type of system for the
surveyed districts.
Figure 8: Average Number of
Digital Systems By ESU
Average # of
Teaching and
Learning Systems
Average # of
Back Office
Systems
Average # of
Administrative
Systems
Reported Systems
ESU 1
ESU 2
ESU 3
ESU 4
ESU 5
ESU 6
ESU 7
ESU 8
ESU 9
ESU 10
ESU 11
ESU 13
ESU 15
ESU 16
ESU 17
ESU 18
ESU 19
ESU Headquarters
ESU 1, Wakeﬁeld
ESU 2, Fremont
ESU 3, Omaha
ESU 4, Auburn
ESU 5, Beatrice
ESU 6, Milford
ESU 7, Columbus
ESU 8, Neligh
ESU 9, Hastings
ESU 10, Kearney
ESU 11, Holdrege
ESU 13, Scottsbluff
ESU 15, Trenton
ESU 16, Ogallala
ESU 17, Ainsworth
ESU 18, Lincoln
ESU 19, Omaha
0 5 10 15 20

PercentofDistrictsWithoutDigitalSystemsPercentofDistrictsWithDigitalSystems
Figure9:SystemAvailability
■ManualSystem
■NoSystem■■■DigitalSystem
0%20%40%60%80%100%20%40%60%80%100%
Assessmentsystem
CareerDevelopmentorCareerInformationsystem
CollaborationandConferencingTools
CreditRecoverysystem
DataManagementsystem
EducatorEvaluationsystem
LearningManagementsystem
ProfessionalDevelopmentsystem
ProgressMonitoringorRTIsystem
IndividualEducationPlan(IEP)Managementsystem
LibraryManagementsystem
NutritionorFoodManagementsystems
SchoolGuidanceandCounselingsystems
StudentInformationSystem
TestAnalysissystem
TransportationManagementsystem
Financesystem
HumanResourceManagement
Procurementsystem
SubstituteManagementsystem
Teaching
andLearning
Systems
BackOffice
Systems
Administrative
Systems

Participants in the Teaching and Learning Systems focus group described the manual effort often
involved in gathering and distributing information related to successful implementations of key initiatives.
This manual effort may be that one (or more) school leader gathers information on formative test results
and distributes to teachers in paper format. It can also be that teachers are tracking and gathering
student information on their own. Participants described challenges in these cases because data is
not connected to other key systems, nor can it be easily analyzed against comparable benchmarks or
cohorts of students.
“We do not have a comprehensive tracking system. Administrators provide some
information to staff in electronic and paper form, but we have many assessment
systems with no great way to tie them together. Some staff members just use paper
and pencil. ” – District Leader, Teaching and Learning Focus Group
A particular group of systems is relevant to NDE’s upcoming priorities: blended learning, implementing
teacher/principal evaluation, and using data to support a cycle of continuous improvement. Digital
systems may support the implementation of these objectives in so far as the systems are integrated with
other key systems, usable, and save time for those responsible for the organization of new initiatives.
Figure 10: Alignment of NDE Initiatives to Supporting Systems
NDE Initiatives System(s)
Blended Learning Learning Management System
Teacher/Principal Evaluation Educator Evaluation System, Professional Development
Data-driven education intelligence
systems for continuous
improvement
Data Management System,
Assessment System, Test Analysis, Progress Monitoring System
The systems that may support NDE’s priorities are sparsely present in districts. The Data Management
System is the most ubiquitous of this group, but according to the focus group participants, the student
information system is often performing some of the functions of a data management system.
“I challenge anyone to say they are ready for all of what is coming next.”
– District Leader, Teaching and Learning Focus Group
“I know the important things will be the new initiatives – like linking teacher data to
student data – and we haven’t found a way to do this.” – District Leader,
Back Office Focus Group

NETA TEACHING AND LEARNING RESPONSES
Researchers invited members of the Nebraska Education Technology Association (NETA) to participate in
a survey of Teaching and Learning system availability and importance. The complete survey is available
in Appendix E. Two hundred forty four educators responded to the survey, representing the district size
groupings fairly evenly. The survey asked educators to list the top three most important Teaching and
Learning systems. Figure 11 shows the frequency in which a particular system was listed in the top
three systems by NETA participants.
SYSTEM NEED
The larger survey asked district leaders to identify if their districts currently employ a digital system to
perform the functions as described. Each district was then asked about the systems’ importance. The
systems that are most ubiquitous in the state (student information systems, finance systems) were most
frequently rated as important. Certainly these are valuable to districts, but combining the absence of a
system with its perceived importance may more accurately reflect districts’ need for systems. Digital
Teaching and Learning systems were frequently unavailable yet rated as highly important by district
leaders.
Figure 11: NETA Respondents Priorities
21%
7%
7%
14%
4%4%
14%
13%
17%

The quadrant in Figure 12 illustrates the concept of system need. The vertical axis shows the percent
of districts rating the system as highly important (the top two ratings for importance combined). The
horizontal axis shows the percent of districts that do not currently have a digital system available.
Therefore, the quadrants represent the following:
• Quadrant 1: Highly Important, Not Readily Available (Most Need)
• Quadrant 2: Less Important, Not Readily Available
• Quadrant 3: Less Important, Less Available
• Quadrant 4: Highly Important, Highly Available
The systems that are clustered in Quadrant 1 are both unavailable and important. Teaching and Learning
Systems are most likely to appear in this category. The systems in Quadrant 4 are highly important
to districts but it is safe to assume they have already purchased these systems. The transportation
management system is alone in Quadrant 3; in focus groups district participants confirmed that is was
only a priority when logistically necessary. Collaboration and Conferencing Tools were alone in Quadrant
2. This is likely because few systems were considered entirely unimportant by districts.
The focus group participants elaborated on the capacity-building opportunity for each quadrant.
For example, NDE may build capacity by systems in Quadrant 4 (likely already in place by districts)
by negotiating lower costs if possible. For systems in Quadrant 1, NDE may consider selecting new
systems to fill the need and setting standards for cost and integration to the NEDS.
Percent of Districts Without a Digital System
Figure 12: System Need
Comparing Importance to Ubiquity
Teaching & Learning
Back Office
Administrative
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
50%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
50%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PercentofDistrictsRatingSystemasImportant
1
23
4

STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Overall, the respondents reported satisfaction with student information systems. The relatively lower
satisfaction rates for flexibility and training suggest that districts feel locked in to their options of vendors
for the SIS. The participants in the focus group on Administrative Systems revealed that the bulk of
transition cost to a new SIS vendor is related to training users on the new system. Study participants
named the training effort (along with data transferability and flexibility to accommodate necessary
customizations) as a deterrent to switching systems even when dissatisfied. Small and Very Small
districts reported feeling dissatisfied more often on all factors than their larger counterparts, but were still
satisfied overall with their student information systems.
Figure 13 shows the top four SIS vendors cover over 95% of the state’s students.
Figure 13: Student Information System Vendors
Name Vendor Districts Dist %
13-14 PK-12
Membership
Student %
Infinite Campus Infinite Campus 33 13.25% 119,340 38.82%
Powerschool Pearson 165 66.27% 114,452 37.23%
EduPoint Synergy 1 0.40% 37,879 12.32%
SIMS ESU3 7 2.81% 23,685 7.70%
Schoolmaster Tyler Technologies 16 6.43% 4,794 1.56%
GoEdustar Harris School Solutions 12 4.82% 3,693 1.20%
Sycamore Education Sycamore Leaf Solutions 6 2.41% 1,275 0.41%
Administrator’s Plus Rediker Software 3 1.20% 1,121 0.36%
JMC JMC Inc 3 1.20% 855 0.28%
Other Other 3 1.20% 304 0.10%
TOTALS 249 307,398
The SIS is the single most important application for districts, supporting the day-to-day operation
of schools. In addition because the SIS is the system of record for much of the student data, it also
represent the single most important source for the state’s data system. Four issues were identified with
the respect to the SIS:
• Districts may not be receiving the best pricing for their SIS
• SIS pricing is generally not equitable across districts of different sizes
• Support (implementation services, training, help desk) is not consistent across different districts
and vendors
• The willingness and capability of the SIS vendors to connect into the state’s infrastructure varies
SYSTEM COST AND ACCOUNTABILITY BURDEN
Superintendents responding to the survey offered a high-level estimate of IT system cost. District
bookkeepers provided more detailed financial information in the individual financial interviews. Their
responses demonstrated relative consistency in percent of total district budget spent on Information
Technology (between 2% and 3%) and an average overall per student cost of nearly $250/student for
total systems.

Although this study does not focus on the cost of networking, hardware, and other infrastructure, it
is worth noting that districts reported paying for such activities through local bond issue and not the
general district budget. It is also relevant to the upcoming blended learning initiative that districts are
concerned about the cost related to reducing ratios of students to devices and replacing devices more
frequently.
The survey also asked superintendents for an estimate of full-time employees (FTE) devoted to the
effort of submitting accountability data. The survey respondents reported an average of six FTEs per
district devoted to system and data management. The financial interviewees were more exact in their
estimates of employee time for the state accountability submissions alone. Figure 14 reports the FTE
count appropriate for district size grouping. If each of these employees costs an average of $50,000 per
year (salary, benefits, and other allocated expenses), then the accountability submission represents time
worth over $22 million per year.
Figure 14: FTE Cost of Accountability Submission
District Size
Reported FTE for
Accountability Submission
Cost @ $50,000
each per year
Very Small 1 FTE/District for 83 Districts
Small 1 FTE /District for 96 Districts
Medium 3 FTE/District for 52 Districts
Large 6 FTE/District for 15 Districts
Very Large 10 FTE/District for 3 Districts
Total District Cost $22,750,000 per year
NDE Cost $2,500,000 per year
Beyond quantifying the value of their employees’ time, focus group participants and financial
interviewees discussed the burden of state accountability reporting in more depth. District leaders
generally believe in the need for state-level data collection, but reported feeling frustrated about the
return on their time investment. Participants frequently told researchers that the type of information
sent to the districts was irrelevant to student learning, or that reports came back too late to impact
instruction.
“The state should be there to assist districts in achieving their missions locally.
Of course this will include regulation and accountability. But these reports are
cumbersome and time-consuming, and ultimately they do not impact student learning.
The purpose of data is to get it to the classroom level to change instruction and
differentiate, but these reports don’t do that.” – District Leader,
Back Office Focus Group

LIKELIHOOD OF PARTICIPATING
The overwhelming response by the survey respondents was that they were likely to join systems. The
virtual focus group attendees discussed in more detail the “right conditions” for participation in these
systems. Participants identified cost (and financial support from the state) as a key factor. In many cases
participants reported being more likely to join a system that they do not currently have in their district,
rather than switching vendors from an existing system. This is particularly relevant to those systems
that will support NDE’s upcoming priorities (blended learning, teacher/principal evaluation, education
intelligence). District leaders also told researchers that interoperability and data transferability would be
ideal for joining a new system or cooperative purchasing agreement.
The focus group participants discussed the student information system separately from the others
perhaps because of the large effort involved in implementing a new system. Participants were reticent to
consider switching student information systems as they recalled either recent effort to implement a new
system or the long history of customizations needed to make the system function appropriately for their
districts. Study participants did, however, nearly universally support connecting the student information
system to data collections.
“I think school districts are excited about the prospect of working together to
strengthen the state as a whole.” – District Leader, Teaching and Learning Focus Group
DATA USE PERCEPTIONS
The survey asked district leaders their opinion on the importance of data use to state and local strategic
initiatives. Researchers derived the questions from meetings with NDE and district stakeholders on their
current initiatives and the highlights of the 2014 NDE State Data Conference. These initiatives include:
implementing a teacher effectiveness framework, improving special education services, measuring
student perceptual information, measuring the post-secondary outcomes of Nebraska students,
measuring the success of early childhood providers, and strengthening credential-based career
education in Nebraska. Respondents from all district groupings rated the use of data as highly important
to achieve success in these areas.
“We use data for multiple things, but it is most effective when it is centered on student
learning.” – District Leader, Teaching and Learning Focus Group
The focus group participants agreed that data use will be integral to achieving their local goals and
improving student outcomes in Nebraska. They imagine that an integrated, efficient instructional
improvement system could overcome any lasting resistance to data use, which is largely related to a
lack of time, training, and support. In fact, districts perceive their investment –both time and money – in
producing and sustaining custom applications as proof that there is unmet demand for systems that will
ease the burden of data use on those that need it most.
“Data availability has come so far that we’re swimming in it. But we can’t get it to do
what we need with simplicity. We’re playing catch up to what’s possible.”
- District Leader, Back Office Focus Group

SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP CONCLUSIONS
The focus group participants discussed strategies for building capacity of the districts to meet the needs
of all students. They agree that NDE and the ESUs are best suited to work together to scale innovation
and systems to all districts. The strategies and priorities the participants identified are below.
1. The districts overwhelmingly support automating accountability submissions.
If the student information system could connect to a system that would validate the submission to the
state from existing systems, limiting the redundancy and effort in data collection, the districts could
redirect that effort toward the continuous improvement of student outcomes. This fits well with a vision
of the state education agency as a contributor to core functions, while letting districts direct efforts to
innovation.
2. The districts agree that the ecosystem will better support students and teachers if
the systems are interoperable.
These will eliminate the redundancies in data and logistical information. The districts have immediate
needs for interoperability, including: connecting the student information systems to those systems
that analyze assessment results and special education systems. They would also like human resource
systems to be connected to the new educator evaluation frameworks and professional development
systems. The need for interoperability will only increase as new systems are introduced into the
ecosystem.
3. The districts would like to leverage collective purchasing agreements when possible
to lower costs of new or existing systems.
Those systems in particular are the student information system library management systems, substitute
management, and transportation management. However, the effort associated with transitioning systems
is an obstacle to participation for districts.
4. The districts are looking for particular guidance and assistance from the state for
purchasing new technology systems that will support strategic priorities.
The systems for blended learning, teacher and principal evaluations, and education intelligence are
particularly relevant. Districts want access to secure and private data warehouses with an education
intelligence reporting layer for longitudinal outcome analysis. They would also like a comprehensive
dashboard tool that serves as a one-stop-shop for student information relevant to the daily needs of
teachers (differentiating for personalized learning and reflecting on practice). They are interested in
connecting data from early childhood services to K12 classroom teachers. To support upcoming data
cadre initiatives to include student perceptual information and school climate data, districts will need
delivery and display systems that do not add to the burden of manually implementing new initiatives.

In fact, all of the above will only be possible for districts if they have access to efficient and effective
systems, and re-direct their time and money away from accountability submissions and to continuously
improving teaching and learning instead. The state should lead this effort by setting expectations
of technology vendors interested in providing the above system to Nebraska districts. NDE will set
expectations for operating on the Nebraska standards for interoperability, security, and privacy. The
systems should be cost-effective, particularly with a group purchasing agreement negotiated by NDE
and the ESUs.
ESU DATA SYSTEMS
Nebraska’s 16 Education Service Units are chartered by Title 92 Chapter 84 to support the school
districts as follows:
• Act primarily as service agencies in providing core services and services identified and requested
by member school districts;
• Provide for economy, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in the cooperative delivery of educational
services;
• Provide educational services through leadership, research, and development in elementary and
secondary education;
• Act in a cooperative and supportive role with the State Department of Education and school
districts in development and implementation of long-range plans, strategies, and goals for the
enhancement of educational opportunities in elementary and secondary education; and
• Serve, when appropriate and as funds become available, as a repository, clearinghouse, and
administrator of federal, state, and private funds on behalf of school districts which choose to
participate in special programs, projects, or grants in order to enhance the quality of education in
Nebraska schools.
The ESUs are funded through state allocations and by providing paid services to districts. Two percent
of this funding supports the ESU Coordinating Council (ESUCC).
The ESUs provide the statewide network infrastructure through Network Nebraska and support many
districts with shared data centers, and basic software infrastructure (directory services, Domain Name
System, email, web hosting, etc.). ESUCC is piloting a federated identity and single sign-on (SSO)
capability.
The ESUCC has stated a long term vision to “provide an enterprise-grade, efficient and economical
technology platform through which applications and services are delivered to improve school
performance and learner outcomes.” This means expanding their service offerings to support a full
range of data system offerings and services, as in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15: ESU Service OfferingsSCHOOL-IN-A-BOX
Professional Development
SUPPORT
Applications
Data Store & Access/API
Data Collection & Transformation - SIF, CEDS & Ed-Fi
Software Development
Federated Identity Services
DNS | Web Hosting | E-mail, Spam Filtering | Backup | Monitoring | ...
Basic Services
High-Availability Systems (OpenStack)
Hardware - Switches, Servers & Storage
Data Center - CSN (Lincoln), ESUs 2, 10 (3, 5, 6, 10, 18, 19)
Network Security - FortiGate, Network Nebraska, ESUs & Schools
Network - Network Nebraska
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS
The Nebraska Education Data Systems were assessed along the following criteria:
• Adequacy for reporting
• Level of integration
• Adequacy of staff
• Adequacy to support instructional improvement initiatives
• Performance on Data Quality Campaign’s 10 Essential Elements for Effective Data Use
ADEQUACY FOR REPORTING
The current state systems meet the statutory requirements for Federal and State reporting. However, the
accountability focus has limited the data provided for legislative and public access to accountability data
and assessment scores. There are other areas of interest to the teachers, parents, community leaders
and legislators that could be addressed if a broader data set existed across all districts.
The annual timelines for accountability reporting limits the timeliness of the data to support meaningful
decision-making during the school year. The lack of timeliness and limited scope of the data collections
has made the state reporting of little use to districts to inform instructional improvement.
Financial information in the AFR is reported in account summaries based upon the state-defined
accounting system. This system is at too high of a level of granularity to easily provide data for public
or legislative consumption that answers meaningful questions about whether the dollars are resulting in
meaningful instructional improvement.

LEVEL OF INTEGRATION
The current structure of data systems provides no integration of data systems between districts. The
exception to this is where a specific vendor that happens to be selected by multiple districts provides a
level of integration (e.g., for transcript transfer).
Within a district, the data systems are not well integrated because of poor inter-vendor integration.
There are a few noteworthy exceptions, as follows:
• The large districts have sufficient staff to build and sustain integrations between systems and to
bring data from different systems into database and warehouses for reporting and analytics
• Single vendor suites typically integrate their own modules within a suite
The NDE Portal provides common access to state systems for users. In addition, the front end data
collection systems are integrated with backend data reporting systems.
The districts’ Student Information System generates most of the data required for the NSSRS data
collections. Most of the data required by the CDC is a manual entry of computed data.
ADEQUACY OF STAFF
The medium to very large districts have adequate in size and capability staff to host, customize,
maintain, and sustain their data systems. However, even there, there are many worthwhile projects
that remain on the back burner. The small and very small districts however do not have the necessary
Information Technology (IT) staff to field and maintain a robust set of education applications.
The small districts are often assisted by ESU IT staff. The ESU network also allows smaller districts
to effectively pool resources for common software systems. However the capabilities and services
provides by the ESUs are not uniform across the state. Moreover the ESUs are currently not staffed to
support their larger support vision.
The NDE staff is adequate to support today’s systems, but is not sufficient to support future systems.
As the state’s role changes to be a more active collaborator in instructional improvement systems, the
NDE staff will need to expand and add capacity and capabilities and also add more leadership positions.
A K-12 CIO has served as a critical success factor for the coordination of education data and technology
in other states, and Nebraska would do well to follow suit.
ADEQUACY TO SUPPORT INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT
INITIATIVES
The state’s Instructional improvement initiatives include the following:
• Blended Learning to implement instructional and content technologies to enhance teaching
and learning to improve outcomes for students of all ages. It is promoted by education research
as one of the most promising innovations to access and develop content for the face-to-face
classroom, for distance learning, and for student learning outside of the classroom and the
normal school day.
• Teacher Evaluation for principals and teachers based upon multiple components of
performance including a teacher-generated goal related to student performance growth.

• Career Readiness by incorporating appropriate curriculum and programs to bring greater
relevance and value to every student’s school experience, by providing opportunities for
students to become aware of career choice throughout their education, and by helping students
understand the relationship between today’s educational choices and tomorrow’s career
potential.
• Education Intelligence to provide a statewide resource for districts to gather data from
multiple sources, unify it into a single longitudinal data store, provide visualizations to understand
the data, to apply analytics to understand correlations and trends, draw conclusions as to what
the data shows and arrive at appropriate sustainable responses to the data.
The current systems do not meet the needs of these initiatives. The state needs new education data
systems to include the following:
• Instructional improvement systems that include learning management, assessment creation and
management, and learning content management
• A comprehensive data system that longitudinally links student performance over the years; links
teachers and programs to students; and links early childhood, and postsecondary and workforce
data with K-12
• Application(s) of teacher performance rating, observation, and surveys.
While current state data systems do not provide timely access to relevant and accurate data to meet
various needs, recent initiatives are aimed at closing that gap, as follows:
• The Ed-Fi dashboards target providing information for teachers in public schools about student
achievement in their classrooms
• The unified Ed-Fi data warehouse will provide a platform for objective research regarding
educational practices, data for policy formation and review, and accountability to the public
regarding the performance of the public schools.
COSTS OF THE CURRENT EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS
Historically, the education data collection systems in Nebraska have been built using federal resources.
Much of the ongoing support and maintenance of the systems remains federally funded as well.
The most recent federal investment was provided by a $4.3 million Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
grant from the US Department of Education. The resources are supporting the creation of a data
dashboard tool for teacher and administrators in school districts to access secure and appropriate data
to support decisions in the classroom. As part of the implementation, an opportunity to restructure
the data systems, warehousing, and collection approaches, using open source resources, provide a
significant opportunity to eliminate ongoing license fees and increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and
timeliness of the data collection.
Outside of Federally-funded investments, Nebraska spends an estimated annual $100 million for
technology, software systems, and accountability data submission, as follows:
• Based upon the district surveys, Nebraska districts spend roughly $74.7 million per year on IT
and systems.
• An estimated 455 FTEs are involved in the current data collection process at districts,
representing an annual cost of $22.75 million
• NDE spends $2.5M per year on licensing, IT personnel and help desk supporting the
accountability submissions.

CURRENT PERFORMANCE ON DQC’S
10 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE
DATA USE
The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan national advocacy group founded
in 2005. They now lead a partnership of nearly 100 organizations committed to realizing the vision of
an education system in which all major stakeholders are empowered with high-quality data. Their “10
Essential Elements” are the follow-up to “10 State Actions” which together provide a roadmap for state
policymakers to create a culture of continuous improvement through data use. States publicly report
their progress each year.
In 2013 Nebraska demonstrated 3 of the 10 Essential Elements, as they did in 2011 and 2012. The
DQC survey found Nebraska has succeeded in securely linking data between early childhood and K-12,
establishing data governance structures, and offering data literacy training to teachers and principals to
engage in continuous improvement. Other positive highlights include the funding committed in the state
budget to sustaining a longitudinal data system.
Still, there is work to be done. The DQC roadmap to success suggests that Nebraska mature its data
use in some of the following ways:
• Supporting the production of early warning systems
• Sharing teacher performance data with educator preparation programs
• Measuring teacher and principal effectiveness with components of student achievement and
growth
• Providing parents of Nebraska children with access to their own children’s data
• Providing information to families about financial readiness for college choice (Data Quality
Campaign, 2013).

SUMMARY OF CURRENT DATA SYSTEM
CHALLENGES
Nebraska’s education system is largely supported by district-centric data system
implementations which have a large amount of variability from district to district.
Within each district’s data system, there is poor integration between applications from different vendors,
creating silos which limit the use of data and result in inconsistencies. There are inequities in the
capabilities of district data systems, particularly between large and small districts. Most districts do not
have all of the education applications that they consider important, particularly those related to teaching
and learning.
The state’s data system is focused on accountability and does not directly contribute to the
core mission of teaching and learning at the districts.
The accountability data collection process is expensive and burdensome for the districts, requiring an
estimated 655,200 hours annually. The accountability process is also expensive for Student Information
System vendors, a cost that they directly or indirectly pass onto districts.
Staff data is spread across Human Resources and Student Information Systems at the
district level and the Teacher Certification and Nebraska Public Employees Retirement
system (NPERS) at the state level.
The school staff data collection from the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS) provides
the state minimal information on staff demographics, experience, education, and position assignment
information. This information is not adequate to address current and future requirements for more in-
depth teacher data or to link teachers to student performance and success data. This data should also
support the entire continuum of professional learning, from high-quality teacher preparation programs to
professional development related to student needs.
Nebraska’s network of Educational Service Units (ESUs), the ESU Coordinating Council
(ESUCC), and Network Nebraska are all contributing to improving the capabilities and the
efficiencies of the data systems for the districts.
However, the capabilities and support provided by the ESUs varies across the state. Additional capacity
is needed.
Nebraska’s data systems across the districts, ESUs, and NDE are not adequate to support
the current education initiatives that include Blended Education, Teacher Evaluation,
Education Intelligence, and Career Readiness.
Most districts do not have access to the tools to support instructional improvement, teacher evaluation,
or data analytics.

FUTURE VISION
The Nebraska State Board of Education reaffirmed an overarching set of three major goals in June 2014
as follows.
Goal 1: Improve Achievement Outcomes for All Students
1) Continue to develop longitudinal data system including implementing data analysis and retrieval
tools such as the data reporting system, data dashboards, and integrated systems supporting
data based decision making at a state and local level
2) Support teacher/principal evaluation pilot implementations and support partners in efforts to
implement instructional models
3) Build a system to measure progress toward reducing achievement gaps and promote data that
focuses on achievement outcomes for all educational levels in Nebraska
4) Improve graduation rates across all districts and all subgroups
5) Explore use of nationally recognized assessment for career and college readiness for all
Nebraska high school students
6) Lead the coordination of early education opportunities to expand the availability of quality public
preschools
Goal 2: Improve and Support State and Local Accountability
1) Implement a “next generation” accountability system under the provisions of LB 438
2) Continue to organize investment in accountability and intervention system
3) Invest in an integrated data and reporting system
4) Develop a professional development system that increases capacity for school district
improvement and school building intervention
5) Initiate a process for regular policy forums by the Board across the state
Goal 3: Improve Communication and Collaboration with Policy Partners
1) Develop and implement a communication plan designed to engage policy partners on a regular
basis
2) Work closely with Legislators and the Governor as well as other state and local level leaders to
determine key system investments
Develop a plan with policy partners that contributes to a vision for Pre-K through post-secondary
education in Nebraska
Achieving these objectives is a multi-year initiative that will require broad participation across the
districts, ESUs and NDE.
Nebraska is committed to a process of continuous education improvement
The “system” of education is a complex undertaking – there is no “silver bullet,” be it policy, curriculum,
technique, or method - that will guarantee the academic performance of every student, at every school.
Improvement requires experimentation and embracing continuously evolving best practices throughout
the system of education, requiring the active involvement of all of Nebraska’s education leaders and
professionals. Continuous improvement requires a sustainable culture and infrastructure supporting
deliberate and managed change.

A white paper by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching defines the continuous
improvement cycle in a recent methodological study of educational organizations engaging in the
process. First, “improvement” science differs from an “audit”; the latter is designed to find out what
is actual whereas the former “describes how to reduce the gap between what is actual and what is
possible.” The field of study itself is focused on the efforts to improve quality of “practice that have
genuine consequences for people’s lives” in the day-to-day (Park, et.al 2013, 3). The Carnegie Study
focused on education organizations implementing many different models of this, including “The Model
for Improvement”, “Six Sigma”, “Results-Oriented-Cycle-of-Inquiry”, “Data Wise”, and the “Plan-Do-
Study-Act Cycle”.
The Nebraska version of this is the NDE Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) Toolkit (shown in Figure
16 below). The CIP Toolkit:
• Builds on existing efforts to improve student achievement
• Encourages a continuous process
• Integrates activities and programs
• Incorporates researched practices (Effective Schools)
• Uses the rubric for school improvement developed by Nebraskans for Nebraskans
• Identifies strategies for targeting areas of low performance
Figure 16: Continuous Improvement
Creatingthe Proﬁle
Implement
ing
thePlan
P
lanning
to
Im
prove
Setting
t
he
Goals

Fostering continuous improvement requires data systems for benchmarking student, teacher, and
organizational performance and measuring “improvements” at all levels. NDE’s CIP Toolkit’s first action is
to create a profile of a student. The steps of profile creation alone are:
• Determine Data Sources
• Include Student Performance Data
• Include Demographic Data
• Consider Program Data
• Consider Perceptual Data
• Organize and Present Data
• Reflect On and Analyze Data
• Check the Profile for Recommended Components
Once educators at each level complete this step, they can put it to use improving the outcomes of the
classroom, school, or district. The challenge is to get timely, understandable, and actionable data into
the hands of those who can best use it.
The Carnegie Study of educational organizations found that data collection is critical for eventual
improvement, but collecting data was a common challenge. Those that were particularly successful
developed data systems to achieve the phase comparable to profile creation (above). They also built a
culture of data-driven inquiry by investing heavily in data literacy among the educators (Park, et al 2013,
25).
The educators necessary for continuous improvement are a wide range of people. Different data is
required for different stakeholders, at different levels of granularity and in different forms. Naturally,
the teachers, school leaders, education specialists, counselors, and principals at the schools are the
closest to the students and best suited to improve student performance and are in the greatest need for
education data system support. However other stakeholders, such as parent, researchers, community
service providers, administrators, and legislators must also be served. Figure 17 below illustrates the
many uses and stakeholders of student data.
The vision is a statewide data system that builds long term capacity, efficacy and
efficiency in the system of education.
The hallmarks of the envisioned system are as follows:
• Integrate data from multiple systems to provide a more complete and comprehensive view of
students and staff.
• Provide a comprehensive set of instructional improvement tools to meet the state’s education
initiative.
• Reduce district costs for accountability and software licensing to enhance the focus on
instructional improvement.
• Provide uniform access to technology, applications and data across school districts of all size.
• Leverage and strengthen the efficiencies provided by the ESUCC, the ESU network and Network
Nebraska
• Continue to provide choice and encourage education innovation in districts.
This will require a transformation of NDE’s emphasis from solely accountability to being a change agent
for improving student outcomes in partnership with the ESUs and districts.

Figure 17: Who Uses Student Data?
(Data Quality Campaign, 2014)
Parentshave
accessto
informationabout
theirownchildren,
usingittohelp
themlearn.
Teachershaveaccessto
informationaboutthe
individualstudentsintheir
classroom.Theyuseitto
understandhowtheirstudents
arelearningandhelpeach
studentbesuccessful.
Producedby
dataqualitycampaign.org
3.Statesusethedatatomeasurehow
districtsaremeetinggoalsforstudents,
providetoolsbacktodistrictstoinform
instruction,assesshowstatefundsare
improvingeducation,andprovide
aggregateinformationtothepublic.
2.Districtsusethedatatheycollect
fromschoolstomakedecisionsabout
whatresourceseachschoolneedsto
supportitsstudents.Theysendasmall
amountofthedatathattheycollectto
thestatedepartmentofeducation.
1.Dataareusedinclassroomsandschools
tomakechangesininstructionanddecide
whatstudentsneedtoincreaselearning.
4.TheUSdeptreceivestheleastdataof
all.Statessenditasmallamountof
aggregatedata,anditusesthemto
provideinformationtothepublicabout
howalldistrictsareperforming.It
alsousesthemtomeasurehowfederal
fundsarehelpingtoimproveeducation.
Withaclearplan,
researcherscanget
accesstode-identified
andaggregatedatato
studywhatishelping
studentslearnina
districtorstate.
Schoolsanddistrictsrelyon
serviceproviderstomanage
instructionaltoolsandsome
criticalfunctions,like
transportation.Thesethird
partiessometimesneedPII,
butonlygetaccesstothedata
directlyrelevanttotheirwork.
Membersofthepublic,including
neighbors,futureemployersand
electedofficials,onlygettosee
aggregatereports—neverinformation
aboutindividualstudents.Theyuse
theinformationtounderstandhow
districtsandschoolsintheir
communityareperforming.
Whatarethetypesofdata?
Whousesstudentdata?
Mostpersonalstudentinformationstayslocal.Districts,states,andthefederalgovernmentallcollectdata
aboutstudentsforimportantpurposeslikeinforminginstructionandprovidinginformationtothepublic.
Butthetypeofdatacollected,andwhocanaccessthem,isdifferentateachpoint.Fromschoolstothe
U.S.DepartmentofEducation,seehowstudentdataare—andarenot—accessedandused.
ACCESSLIMITS
Notalldataflowsfrom
onegrouptoanother
POLICIES
Theentiresystemisgoverned
byprivacylawsandregulations.
FUNDING
CH3
ch3
H3c
O
oNn
nn
DEMOGRAPHICS
OBSERVATIONS
TESTS
COURSEGRADES
DISTRICTSSTATEDEPTSOFED
SCHOOLS
PROGRAMS
TEACHERINFO
TOOLS&FUNDING
TOOLS
ATTENDANCE
PERSONALLYIDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION(PII)
Informationthatcanbeused
toidentifyindividualstudentsJOEY
AGGREGATEDATA
Informationaboutgroups
ofstudentswithoutany
identifyinginformationDISTRICTA
DE-IDENTIFIEDDATA
Informationaboutindividual
students,butwithidentifying
informationremoved
#51903
#30605
USDEPTOFED
PARENTSRESEARCHERSSERVICE
PROVIDERS
TEACHERS&
PRINCIPALS
INTERVENTIONS
DATA
THEPUBLIC

THE ROLE OF THE STATE EDUCATION AGENCY IN
PROMOTING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
The state is well-suited to support and implement the vision of effective data use defined here. In a
collaborative effort the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center (BCSP Center) has published
a series of articles outlining the “SEA of the Future” - a state education agency that assists districts in
becoming more productive. Several state education agencies including Georgia, Texas, and Delaware
have successfully streamlined data management to reduce data redundancies and provide more direct
access to data for educators. Oregon’s Department of Education supported this data access with data
literacy training for approximately 5,000 educators (as recommended here for Nebraska). In Oregon,
researchers found that the “percentage of students scoring proficient or better on the state test grew
significantly more” in schools whose teachers participated in the training (Gross & Jochim 2014, 21-22).
The BSCP Center publications further identified the following four guiding principles for supporting data
use in districts and schools:
• Principle 1: Collaboratively identify district data capacity to inform state data efforts.
• Principle 2: Transform data into actionable information and ensure district access.
• Principle 3: Ensure data literacy among educators through pre-service and in-service policies
and practices.
• Principle 4: Maximize efficiency and minimize burden in data collection (Gross & Jochim 2013,
22).
Even when arguing for a more limited role of SEAs, other industry thought-leaders support the idea
of building infrastructure at the state level. In “The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the
Oar”, Andy Smarick and Juliet Squire argue that the core competencies of state departments should
include creating and maintaining statewide data systems. This frees up districts to focus on design and
implementation of more successful school models (Smarick & Squire 2014, 17).

RECOMMENDATIONS
This study concludes with the following specific recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Make security, privacy, transparency, and the proper use of data the
core of the Nebraska Education Data System implementation.
Districts should continue to “own” their data within the statewide system. The ESU hosting must
support enterprise-grade security with yearly independent security audits. The following tenets are
recommended to protect privacy while ensuring proper use of student data:
1. Ensure that all agencies, organizations, contractors, and vendors that have access to student
education records provide the same strength of protection, control, and transparency as codified
in appropriate policies, contracts, and data sharing agreements.
2. Ensure that all persons that have access to student education records have training and
certification (micro credentials) on the proper use and protection of education records.
3. Limit access to individual student education records to the minimal set of personnel essential for
legitimate education purposes, for the shortest period of time required for that purpose, and to
the smallest set of data required for that purpose.
4. To the maximum extent possible, use aggregate data and de-identified data in place of individual
student education records.
5. Provide parents transparency into the sources and uses of student data.
6. Provide parents control of the child’s education record to the maximum extent that is possible
while preserving legitimate educational use of that data.
Recommendation 2: Unify the accountability data collection requirements into the Nebraska
Education Data System to minimize the reporting burden on districts.
Replace the current system of accountability data submissions by instead deriving accountability
data from an extended set of data sent securely by district systems into the Nebraska Education Data
Standard (NEDS). The system would move the computations and business rule checks to the state level
for better efficiency and consistency while also providing a transparent facility for district review and
approval.
Recommendation 3: Require application vendors and other sources to provide data in a
standard form specified by NDE directly into the NEDS. Adopt a Nebraska Education Data
Standard in collaboration with the NITC.
Native vendor interfaces are required for sustainability. Ed-Fi defines CEDS-compliant data standard
adopted by 22 states that can be extended for Nebraska-specific requirements. Ed-Fi adoption
preserves district choice while maintaining data standardization at the state level. A governance process
will be required to maintain the Nebraska-extended version of Ed-Fi year-to-year.
Note that to ensure continued vendor participation, the data interface requirement needs to be in policy
or legislation to ensure vendor compliance.

Recommendation 4: Leverage and strengthen Nebraska’s ESU network, the ESUCC, and
Network Nebraska to host, maintain, and sustain the Nebraska Education Data System, to
support a statewide virtual help desk, and to train the educators in it is use.
Provide an enterprise-grade, efficient and economical technology platform through which applications
and services are delivered to improve school performance and learner outcomes. The statewide system
of support would leverage the resources at NDE, ESUCC, ESUs and districts to provide help desk
support to districts and professional development coordination.
Recommendation 5: Leverage the state-level market to influence vendors, negotiate lower
prices through competition, provide consistent functions and pricing across large and small
districts, and expand the number and quality of instructional applications.
Facilitate “economies of scale” and cooperative purchasing at the state and/or ESU level and centralized
services that lower costs without sacrificing the quality of products and services. Use this leverage to
greatly expand the number and quality of instructional improvement applications.
The vision is to create essentially an application store for school districts to choose from that leverages
the collective bargaining advantage of 245 schools districts, 300,000 students, ESU resources and the
Nebraska Department of Education.
Recommendation 6: Invest in providing education intelligence - access to actionable insight
- through a warehouse, business intelligence tools, and increased internal capacity for
districts, policy makers, and researchers.
Leverage the Ed-Fi K-12 statewide longitudinal date warehouse for use by districts, administrators, and
researchers to support analysis of student performance, college and career readiness and success,
instructional improvement initiatives, teacher evaluations, student intervention and professional
development effectiveness. Integrate finance data, early childhood, postsecondary and workforce data.
Recommendation 7: Invest in an integrated data system that spans the districts, the ESUs,
and NDE to support continuous education improvement.
The resulting Nebraska Education Data System (NEDS) should build upon the ongoing SLDS project to
leverage the Ed-Fi data standards and technologies for the data system and dashboards. The system
should adopt and build upon the ESUCC project for Single Sign-On (SSO). While the system will
initially focus on serving the districts, it should ultimately be expanded to reach students and parents,
community service organizations, and researchers.
Recommendation 8: Integrate staff data from district and state data sources, link teachers
to student performance and success, and add additional data to better support teacher
evaluation and professional development.
This will require integration of both the HR and SIS at the district level with the Teacher Certification and
NPERS at the state level. Teachers will be linked to students to assess their contribution to student
performance and growth. Additional data will be integrated for teacher evaluations and observations,
survey data, and professional development.

Recommendation 9: Invest in the licensing, integration and training of an Instructional
Improvement System that is cost-effective for districts of all sizes.
The system will include the critical digital assets and tools to support areas like learning management
systems, content management systems, blended and online learning, teacher/principal evaluation
system, school improvement and climate tools, career readiness and discovery, local assessment
systems, and other tools to enhance the educational opportunities and experiences.
Recommendation 10: Develop the staff and processes necessary to sustain the Nebraska
Education Data System.
Additional leadership positions are recommended and include a K-12 Chief Information Officer and Chief
Privacy Officer at NDE. The recommended initiative will expand an emerging project management office.
Additional data governance processes will be required. Additional technical staff will be required at NDE
and in the ESUs to meet the statewide help desk and support requirements.

1, 3, AND 5 YEAR ROADMAP
The roadmap builds upon key pilot activities that underway this fiscal year (identified as Year 0, SY 15):
• Install, customize, integrate, pilot, and prove the Ed-Fi data system (www.ed-fi.org ) consisting of
an operational data store with transactional and batch data interfaces.
• Develop, pilot and prove the single-sign-on system under development by the ESUCC.
• Develop, pilot, and prove an accountability data mart, deriving accountability data from
transactional data streams from the district student information systems. Accountability data
will be submitted on dual paths from pilot districts, allowing the automatically derived data to be
compared with their actual submissions.
• Install, customize, integrate, pilot, and prove the Ed-Fi longitudinal data warehouse and student
performance dashboard.
• Use the dashboard pilots to also pilot the NDE-ESU virtual help desk to support the pilots.
These pilot activities will provide the base infrastructure to simultaneously expand and rollout the new
Nebraska Education Data System over the next three years. The rollout plan targets the total districts
being operational of approximately 50, 150, and ultimately 245 across years 1 through 3.
The major 1, 3, and 5 year milestones are summarized in Figure 18.
Figure 18: 5 Year Roadmap
Year 0
School Year 2015
Year 1
School Year 2016
Year 2
School Year 2017
Year 3
School Year 2018
Year 4
School Year 2019
Year 5
School Year 2020
Pilot
50 Districts
150 Districts
245 Districts 245 Districts 245 Districts
Pilot Year 0 will
prove:
• Operational data
store
• K12 Data
warehouse
• SIS vendor push
data to API
• Student
performance
dashboards
• Unification of
accountability
collections
• Accountability
data mart
• ESUCC Single
sign-on
• ESU/NDE Virtual
help desk
Year 1 focus is on:
• Rollout and
operationalization
of piloted data
systems
• Collect
requirements
and write group
procurements for
instructional data
systems
• Define and
set policy for
Nebraska data
standard
Year 3 fully operational system
rolled out to all districts:
• Operational data store
• Student performance
dashboards
• P20W data warehouse
• District data marts
• District vendors submitting
data to state API
• Automatic state data and
reporting
• Group purchasing and
deployment of instructional
improvement systems
• App store
• ESUCC Single sign-on
• ESU/NDE Virtual help desk
Year 5 Usage-driven
enhancements likely
to include:
• Financial data
business
intelligence
• Program
effectiveness
measures
• Data backpack
for blended
learning
• Interstate data
transfer

The objective is that by year 3 of the plan (SY 18) to have the first version of the Nebraska Education
Data System operational, integrated, supported, and rolled out to every district in the state. Years 4
and 5 of the plan will focus on expanding the system based upon Nebraska continuous improvement
priorities of the time.
The roadmap is organized into implementation five work streams as follows:
1. Nebraska Education Infrastructure – leverage the Ed-Fi infrastructure to connect source systems
and drive down costs.
2. NDE Accountability Data System – reduce the burden of accountability data submissions on
districts through automated process leveraging the Ed-Fi infrastructure.
3. NDE Education Intelligence System – to provide access to actionable insight – through a
warehouse, business intelligence tools, and increased internal capacity.
4. Help Desk & Support – NDE, along with the ESUCC and ESUs, will provide technical support
for Nebraska education data systems through a virtual help desk and coordinated knowledge
transfer.
5. Nebraska Instructional Improvement System – building the capacity for Nebraska educators to
continuously improve the quality of instruction for students through integrated, efficient systems.
This will serve as an application store.
Figure 19 shows the major activities planned for each of these work streams.
Figure 19: Major Activities
Year 0
School Year 2015
Pilot
Year 1
School Year 2016
50 Districts
Year 2
School Year 2017
150 Districts
Year 3
School Year 2018
249 Districts
Year 4
School Year 2019
249 Districts
Year 5
School Year 2020
249 Districts
Nebraska
Pilot data infrastructure Integrate HR systems Integrate Career Readiness Intra-state data mobility Interstate data mobility
Pilot Ed-Fi dashboards Expand and extend dashboards
Pilot ESUCC Single sign-on Integrate identity mgmt Mature & scale data infrastructure Integrate financial systems
Procure state-sponsored SIS’ Transition & support state-sponsored SIS’
NDE Accountability Data System
Unify NSSRS data collection Unify CDC collection
SIS vendors pilot data to API Define NE Data Standard
Pilot data mart Build business rules Develop state and Federal reporting Add/modify state & Federal collections as required
Review & approval system Dual submissions Deprecate old systems
NDE Education Intelligence System
Install K12 data warehouse Expand warehouse to P20W
Build district security Pilot distict data marts Develop program effectiveness analytics
Mature & scale data warehouse Integrate financial data Integrate financial analytics
Help Desk & Support
Pilot virtual help desk Expand capacity for ESUs + NDE Virtual Help Desk
Nebraska Instructional Improvement System
Define IIS requirements Procure, deploy & train IIS tools Student data backpack
Write group procurements Develop, pilot & mature PD
App store

FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS AND RETURNS
BUDGET REQUEST FOR INVESTMENT
The proposed Biennium budget request for the five work streams is summarized in the table below. The
detailed budget request is provided in Appendix H.
Year 1
FY 2016
SY 2015-2016
Year 2
FY 2017
SY 2016-2017
Nebraska Education Infrastructure $2,204,617 $2,144,257
NDE Accountability Data System $2,579,252 $2,541,572
NDE Education Intelligence System $2,085,080 $2,035,720
Help Desk & Support $1,304,821 $1,264,223
Total NDE DRE Capacity Building $8,173,770 $7,985,772
NE Instructional Improvement System $5,975,358 $5,919,718
Total NDE DRE Budget Issue Requests $14,149,128 $13,905,490
DRE: Data, Research, and Evaluation
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL RETURNS
The primary benefits from the recommended investments will come from a greatly improved instructional
system that improves student performance leading to greater student success.
However the proposed approach also results in cost savings and efficiencies that will provide a financial
return from substantially-reduced accountability costs and from reduced technology costs to districts.
REDUCED ACCOUNTABILITY COSTS
Accountability costs will be reduced by unifying and moving accountability computations to state from a
single fine-grained data collection.
An estimated 455 FTEs are involved in the current data collection process at districts, representing an
annual cost of $22.75 million. NDE spends an additional $2.5M per year on licensing, IT personnel and
help desk supporting the accountability submissions.
The recommended NEDS, when fully implemented, can re-direct at an estimated 50% of the district
FTE time related to accountability submissions to focus on other initiatives that impact can more directly
improve student performance and success. This value is estimated at 12.6 million annually once fully
implemented.
It should be noted that the remaining 50% will be involved in a larger mission of improving data quality
across the all types of data (not just accountability) that are more directly contributing to the mission of
continuous education improvement.

REDUCED TECHNOLOGY COSTS FOR DISTRICTS
Technology costs will be reduced for districts as a result of several factors, including:
• Reduced investment in data system costs by having a centralized capability that uses valuable
Ed-Fi components obtained without license costs
• Negotiated statewide costs for licensing to allow pricing as with largest districts – “cooperative
purchasing”
• Reduced integration costs because vendors are supporting native Ed-Fi interfaces to the
statewide system
• Reduced number of different systems reduces integration and maintenance costs
• Increased stability of systems over time, reducing transition costs
• Reduced costs to increased competitiveness because of reduced vendor lock-in
• Reduced district costs maintaining their own data warehouse
• Savings on procurement costs
Based upon the district surveys, Nebraska districts spend roughly $74.7 million per year on IT and
systems.
The recommended NEDS, when fully implemented, will save an estimated 25% on the districts’ systems
cost a year or $18.7 million.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Total financial return is estimated to be valued at $31.3 M in savings/year after the third year of
investment as shown in Figure 20. Note that the computation of return assumes that a district achieves
the projected cost savings the year after it accomplishes the rollout. For example, if a district went into
production in year 2, their annual savings is assumed from year 3 and beyond.
Figure 20: Return on Investment
Year 1
FY 2016
SY 2015-2016
Year 2
FY 2017
SY 2016-2017
Year 3
FY 2018
SY 2017-2018
Year 4
FY 2019
SY 2018-2019
Year 5
FY 2020
SY 2019-2020
Investment $(14,149,128) $(13,905,490) $(13,905,492)
Returns
Reduced
accountability costs
$1,524,169 $7,590,361 $12,600,000 $12,600,000
Reduced technology
costs
$3,755,020 $11,265,060 $18,700,000 $18,700,000
Yearly net
investment/return
$(14,149,128) $(8,626,301) $4,949,930 $31,300,000 $31,300,000
Cumulative
investment/return
$(14,149,128) $(22,775,429) $(17,825,499) $13,474,501 $44,774,501

RECOMMENDED ROADMAP MEETS THE NEEDS
AND PRIORITIES OF NEBRASKA
The roadmap above, organized into five work streams, aligns with the states goals and objectives of
the Nebraska State Board of Education, with the conclusions of the study and focus groups, with the
principles published for the SEA of the Future, and with the 10 specific recommendations made by this
study. Figure 21 illustrates how each recommendation supports the major principles.
Figure 21: Recommendations to Meet Nebraska’s Needs
Work Streams
Nebraska State Board
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
Goal 1: Improve Achievement Outcomes for All Students
1) Continue to develop longitudinal data
system including implementing data
analysis and retrieval tools such as the
data reporting system, data dashboards,
and integrated systems supporting data
based decision making at a state and
local level
• • • •
2) Support teacher/principal evaluation
pilot implementations and support
partners in efforts to implement
instructional models
• •
3) Build a system to measure progress
toward reducing achievement gaps
and promote data that focuses on
achievement outcomes for all educational
levels in Nebraska
• •
4) Improve graduation rates across all
districts and all subgroups
• • • • •5) Explore use of nationally recognized
assessment for career and college
readiness for all Nebraska high school
students
• •
6) Lead the coordination of early
education opportunities to expand the
availability of quality public preschools • •

Work Streams
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
Goal 2: Improve and Support State and Local Accountability
1) Implement a “next generation”
accountability system under the
provisions of LB 438 • •2) Continue to organize investment in
accountability and intervention system
• • • • •3) Invest in an integrated data and
reporting system
• • • •4) Develop a professional development
system that increases capacity for school
district improvement and school building
intervention
• •
5) Initiate a process for regular policy
forums by the Board across the state
•
Work Streams
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
Goal 3: Improve Communication and Collaboration with Policy Partners
1) Develop and implement a
communication plan designed to engage
policy partners on a regular basis •2) Work closely with Legislators and the
Governor as well as other state and local
level leaders to determine key system
investments
• • • • •
3) Develop a plan with policy partners
that contributes to a vision for PreK
through post-secondary education in
Nebraska
•

Work Streams
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
Study and Focus Group Conclusions
1. The districts overwhelmingly
support automating accountability
submissions. • •
2. The districts agree that the
ecosystem will better support
students and teachers if the systems
are interoperable.
• • • •
3. The districts would like to
leverage collective purchasing
agreements when possible to lower
costs of new or existing systems.
• •
4. The districts are looking for
particular guidance and assistance
from the state for purchasing new
technology systems that will support
strategic priorities.
• •
Work Streams
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
SEA of the Future Principles
Principle 1: Collaboratively identify
district data capacity to inform state
data efforts. • • •
Principle 2: Transform data into
actionable information and ensure
district access. • • •
Principle 3: Ensure data literacy
among educators through pre-
service and in-service policies and
practices.
•
Principle 4: Maximize efficiency and
minimize burden in data collection.
•

Work Streams
of Education Goals
Nebraska
Education
Infrastructure
NDE
Account-
ability Data
System
NDE
Education
Intelligence
System
Help Desk
& Support
NE
Instructional
Improvement
System
Recommendations of the Study
1. Make security, privacy, transparency,
and the proper use of data the core of
the Nebraska Education Data System
implementation. • • • • •
2. Unify the accountability data
collection requirements into the Nebraska
Education Data System to minimize the
reporting burden on districts. •
3. Require application vendors and other
sources to provide data in a standard
form specified by NDE directly into the
NEDS. • • •
4. Leverage and strengthen Nebraska’s
ESU network, the ESUCC, and Network
Nebraska to host, maintain, and sustain
the Nebraska Education Data System,
to support a statewide virtual help desk,
and to train the educators in it is use.
•
5. Leverage the state-level market to
influence vendors, negotiate lower prices
through competition, provide consistent
functions and pricing across large and
small districts, and expand the number
and quality of instructional applications.
• •
6. Invest in providing education
intelligence - access to actionable
insight - through a warehouse, business
intelligence tools, and increased internal
capacity for districts, policy makers, and
researchers.
•
7. Invest in an integrated data system
that spans the districts, the ESUs, and
NDE to support continuous education
improvement. • • • • •
8. Integrate staff data from district and
state data sources, link teachers to
student performance and success, and
add additional data to better support
teacher evaluation and professional
development.
• •
9. Invest in the licensing, integration and
training of an Instructional Improvement
System that is cost-effective for districts
of all sizes. •
10. Develop the staff and processes
necessary to sustain the Nebraska
Education Data System. • • • • •

APPENDIX A: STUDY CONTRIBUTORS
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) mission is to lead and support the preparation of
Nebraskans for learning, earning, and living. NDE led efforts to conduct the study of technology
and data systems commissioned by Legislative Resolution 264.
NEBRASKA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
The Nebraska State Education Association (NSEA) is a member-directed union representing
28,000 public school teachers and other educational professionals across Nebraska. The mission
of the NSEA is to advocate for all education professionals, empowering them to provide an
excellent public education for every student.
NEBRASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
The Nebraska Council of School Administrators (NCSA) is an umbrella organization with more than
1,300 school administrators who serve in Nebraska schools. They are a partner in developing
excellence in educational leadership, providing the “tools” necessary for administrators to be
successful. NCSA provides strength in numbers of school administrators to ensure their voices
are heard in educational matters in Nebraska.
NEBRASKA EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
The Nebraska Educational Technology Association (NETA) is a grassroots organization open to
everyone interested in sharing information about using technology in the educational process.
NETA has approximately 2,000 members. NETA provides leadership by promoting the application
of technology to the educational process at all levels.
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE UNIT COORDINATING COUNCIL
The Nebraska Educational Service Unit Coordinating Council (ESUCC) was created in statute to
coordinate the activities of Nebraska’s 17 Educational Service Units. The ESUCC works toward
statewide coordination to provide the most cost-effective services for the students, teachers,
and school districts in each educational service unit. This includes preparation of strategic plans
to assure cost-efficient and equitable delivery of services across the state and administration of
statewide initiatives and provision of statewide services.
DOUBLE LINE PARTNERS
Double Line Partners (DLP) is a technical consulting firm specializing in designing and
implementing K-12 longitudinal data systems. DLP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Michael &
Susan Dell Foundation.

NEBRASKA EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM
LEGISLATIVE STUDY
LEGISLATIVE STUDY
LEGISLATIVE STUDY
NEBRASKA EDUCATION DATA SYSTE
LEGISLATIVE STUD

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Accountability Submissions – generally refers to the collective body of data submissions made by
districts to the State and then in turn to the federal government. These typically include annual reports of
information such as student demographic information, attendance, and performance on statewide tests.
Continuous Improvement – a cycle of continuous improvement is used here to describe the active
collection of and reflection on student performance on tasks related to learning. Teachers engaging
in a continuous improvement cycle will frequently assess their students (with low stakes) and quickly
intervene to support students who have not yet mastered a concept.
Data-Driven Decision-Making – this too refers to the active process of teachers and school and
district leaders that make decisions on what to change, keep, and/or improve in school and classroom
practices based on the student need demonstrated in the data.
Ed-Fi – a data standard and associated technical assets that serve as a foundation for enabling
interoperability among education data systems designed to improve student achievement and teacher
satisfaction.
Instructional Improvement System – a network of systems secured and hosted in Nebraska that will
connect to eliminate redundancies, enhance student performance across platforms, and save teachers’
time
State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) – This refers to those systems funded by federal grant
dollars intended to enhance the ability of States to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, and use
education data, including individual student records.
Nebraska was first awarded $3,468,335 in SLDS funds in 2007. Through these funds Nebraska
incorporated Special Education and Curriculum segments into a more comprehensive system, created
a special education template to streamline the collection of special education data and enhance the
accessibility and usefulness of data. Nebraska also implanted the Data Quality Curriculum to improve
the overall quality of data in the statewide system by providing training to local personnel in the creation,
collection and reporting of education data.
Nebraska’s 2012 SLDS grant in the amount of $4,362,534 will serve to accomplish four goals:
• Provide a data analysis tool for districts that uses multiple local and state data sources to
produce reports for local decision makers
• Provide a statewide system of professional development training for data analysis that reaches
every district
• Build a research and evaluation operation in NDE collaboratively with the research community
• Expand and enhance the SLDS for sustainability

Education Intelligence – a term for the application of Business Intelligence principles and tools to the
education domain with reports relevant to student performance and instructional practices
Nebraska Education Data Standard (NEDS) - a customized version of the Ed-Fi data standard for
technology and data systems in Nebraska
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
• AFR – Annual Financial Report
• DRE – Nebraska Department of Education’s Data, Research, and Evaluation Team
• ESU – Educational Service Units
• ESUCC – Educational Service Units Coordinating Council
• NCSA – Nebraska Council of School Administrators
• NDE – Nebraska Department of Education
• NSSRS – Nebraska Student and Staff Record System

APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS
TEACHING AND LEARNING SYSTEMS
Data Management System
• Ability to load and update content data from any system
• Search, index, browse, and retrieve content data elements
• Analysis of education data from other systems
• Maintain auditing data across systems
• Reporting with education data from other systems
Assessment System
• Manage, assign, deliver, and score student assessments
• Manage test items and forms including questions types, questions, answers, rationale, etc.
• Author, review, and approve workflows and tools
• Scoring tools
• Manage test set-up options
Learning Management System
• Browse/search course catalog and view course description/content
• Complete pretest/posttest
• Complete course evaluation
• View/print transcript and certificate
• Manage learning activities (e.g.., online courses, training, webinars, etc.) assign/schedule or
publish, and archive
• Course/section self-registration and payment
Professional Development System
• View/print calendar with scheduled and completed evaluations, course sections, etc.
• Brick and mortar classroom, online, and asynchronous learning
• View/print certificate and transcripts
• Progress reports
• Override class enrollment
• Manage educator goal plans and coaching plans
Educator Evaluation System
View, complete, submit and approve an evaluation
• Create and schedule cycles and individual evaluations for educators teachers and principals
• Manage evaluation model frameworks and tools
• Manage and deliver surveys
• Administer and assign evaluations to educators
• Monitor progress

Progress Monitoring/Response to Intervention System
Student progress monitoring tools by stage of intervention
• Set intervention levels of intensity
• Manage resources: general education and special education teachers and specialists
• Monitor learning rate and level of individual student performance
• Ongoing student assessment
• Tiered instruction
• Parental reports on student progress
Credit Recovery System
• Section scheduling supports students across multiple districts or schools, students
• within same district only, or students within same school only
• Pretest/Posttest
• In- person student-teacher interaction
• Manage course catalog, including core and elective
• Independent completion option
Collaboration and Conferencing Tools
• Chat, Wiki, Blogs
• Discussion boards
• Staff collaboration and conferencing
Career Development/Information System
• Manages student progress toward industry certifications
• Identifies postsecondary options based on career interest inventories
• Tracks participation in career education programs
• Manages student personal learning plans
• Provides occupational information by career clusters/paths
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS
Nutrition/Food Management System
• Manage menus
• Manage food inventory
• Manage meal costs and income
Transportation Management Systems
• Manage drivers
• Manage buses and maintenance
• Manage students and routes
• Manage extracurricular activity traffic

School Counseling and Guidance
• Manage and track each counseling contact including reason and outcome, anecdotal
• comments, etc. over the course of a school year, including history
• Configuration options including contact reasons, outcomes, follow up date, etc.
• View/print cumulative counselor contact history for any student
• View/manage counseling records
• Print list of contacts
• Permit a follow update for any counseling contact
• Manage rules and guidelines
• Incident reports
IEP Management System
• Forms management including referrals, meeting notes, prior written notices as well as
e-signatures, evaluations report forms and design forms
• Manage library content, including goals and prescriptions
• Manage plans such as student accommodation plan, individual language learner plan, individual
compensatory plan, etc.
• Section 504 management compliance
• Monitor individual student progress
Library Management System
• Acquisitions
• Book and content cataloging
• Circulation
• Serials: periodicals and other subscriptions
• Multimedia
• Overdue materials tracking
• Barcoding
Test Analysis System
• Robust import capability (i.e., national, state and local assessments; information from a Student
Information System; and student academic grades and attendance
• Support report format and styles such as dashboards with drilldown, text, charts, graphs, etc.
• Support report groupings such as district, school, teacher, class and student; demographics or
programs; cohorts; custom groupings; standards
• Support reporting periods such as single year, multiyear, custom date ranges, etc.
• Support output medium for reports including print, PDF, Excel CSV and SAS
Student Information System
• Discipline and behavior management
• Grades reporting and transcripts management
• Health and Immunization records management
• Class scheduling management
• Parent portal
• Student personal information
• Manage student absences
• Messaging among stakeholders
• School calendar functions

BACK OFFICE SYSTEMS
Finance System
• Accounts payable capabilities
• Accounts receivable capabilities
• Controlling/budgeting capabilities
• Fixed assets management capabilities
• Other capabilities include calendar and support for parent and child account codes
Human Resources Management System
• Personnel/employee administration including personal information, benefits and termination
• Time management (e.g., time clocks, etc.)
• Organization management
• Recruitment/talent management
• Training and development
• Payroll management
• Self-service center
• Manager center
Procurement System
• Purchasing
• Inventory Management
• Vendor Management
• Materials Planning
• Warehouse Management
• Workflow/approval
• Plant Maintenance
Substitute Management
• Substitute pool management
• Manage absences and substitute assignments
• Communication tools

APPENDIX D: SURVEY OF DISTRICT LEADERS

Nebraska Survey of Educational Data SystemsNebraska Survey of Educational Data SystemsNebraska Survey of Educational Data SystemsNebraska Survey of Educational Data Systems
Hello,

Welcome to the Nebraska Survey of Educational Data Systems.

Administrators from all public school districts in Nebraska have been invited to provide information that will inform an
interim study to the Nebraska Legislature prompted by LR 264. This study will examine Nebraska's educational data
systems to including questions of adequacy, quality, cost, and transparency.

We appreciate you taking a few minutes to provide responses to the following questions on behalf of your school district.
The questionnaire contains 47 items and should take about 15 minutes to complete.

In the following questionnaire, educational data systems are grouped into three general categories: Teaching and
Learning Systems, “Back Office” Systems, and Administrative Systems. A group of questions will be asked about each
category of educational data systems in your school district.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Matt Hastings at matt.hastings@nebraska.gov or call 402
4714483.

Thank you for your participation!

Welcome and Introduction

Page 2
The following group of questions address data systems for "Teaching and Learning" in your school district.
1. Do you have a Data Management system in your district?
Data management systems generally provide the following features:
• Ability to load and update content data from any system
• Search, index, browse and retrieve content data elements
• Analysis of education data from other systems
• Maintain auditing data across systems
• Reporting with education data from other systems
2. How important is a Data Management system for your district?
3. Do you have an Assessment system in your district?
Assessment systems generally provide the following features:
• Manage, assign, deliver and score student assessments
• Manage test items and forms including question types, questions, answers, rationale,
etc.
• Author, review and approve workflows and tools
• Scoring tools
• Manage test setup options

Teaching and Learning Systems
Yes (we have a digital system)

nmlkj
Yes (we do not have a digital system)

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj
Not important at all

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

Page 3
4. How important is an Assessment system for your district?
5. Do you have a Learning Management System in your district?
Learning management systems generally provide the following features:
• Browse/search course catalog and view course description/content
• Complete pretest/posttest
• Complete course evaluation
• View/print transcript and certificate
• Manage learning activities (e.g., online courses, training, webinars, etc.), assign/schedule
or publish, and archive
• Course/section selfregistration and payment
6. How important is a Learning Management system for your district?
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 4
7. Do you have a Professional Development system in your district?
Professional development systems generally provide the following features:
• View/print calendar with scheduled and completed evaluations, course sections, etc.
• Brick and mortar classroom, online, and asynchronous learning
• View/print certificate and transcripts
• Progress reports
• Override class enrollment
• Manage educator goal plans and coaching plans
8. How important is a Professional Development system for your district?
9. Do you have an Educator Evaluation system in your district?
Educator evaluation systems generally provide the following features:
• View, complete, submit and approve an evaluation
• Create and schedule cycles and individual evaluations for educators teachers and
principals
• Manage evaluation model frameworks and tools
• Manage and deliver surveys
• Administer and assign evaluations to educators
• Monitor progress

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

Page 5
10. How important is an Educator Evaluation system for your district?
11. Do you have a Progress Monitoring or Response To Intervention (RTI) system in your
district?
Progress monitoring/response to intervention systems generally provide the following
features:
• Student progress monitoring tools by stage of intervention
• Set intervention levels of intensity
• Manage resources: general education and special education teachers and specialists
• Monitor learning rate and level of individual student performance
• Ongoing student assessment
• Tiered instruction
• Parental reports on student progress
12. How important is a Progress Monitoring/RTI system for your district?
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 6
13. Do you have a Credit Recovery system in your district?
Credit recovery systems generally provide the following features:
• Section scheduling supports students across multiple districts or schools, students
within same district only, or students within same school only
• Pretest/Posttest
• Facetoface studentteacher interaction
• Manage course catalog, including core and elective
• Independent completion option
14. How important is a Credit Recovery system for your district?
15. Do you have Collaboration and Conferencing Tools in your district?
Collaboration and conferencing tools generally provide the following features:
• Chat, Wiki, blogs
• Discussion boards
• Staff collaboration and conferencing

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

Page 7
16. How important are Collaboration and Conferencing Tools for your district?
17. Do you have a Career Development or Career Information system in your district?
Career Development/Information systems generally provide the following features:
Manages student progress toward industry certifications
Identifies postsecondary options based on career interest inventories
Tracks participation in career education programs
Manages student personal learning plans
Provides occupational information by career clusters/paths
18. How important is a Career Development/Information system for your district?

Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 8
The next group of questions address data systems for "Administrative" purposes in your school district.
19. Do you have Nutrition or Food Management systems in your district?
Nutrition and food management systems generally provide the following features:
• Manage menus
• Manage food inventory
• Manage meal costs and income
20. How important is a Nutrition and Food Management system for your district?
21. Do you have a Transportation Management system in your district?
Transportation management systems generally provide the following features:
• Manage drivers
• Manage buses and maintenance
• Manage students and routes
• Manage extracurricular activity traffic

Administrative Systems

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

Page 9
22. How important is a Transportation Management system for your district?
23. Do you have School Guidance and Counseling systems in your district?
School Guidance and Counseling systems generally provide the following features:
• Manage and track each counseling contact including reason and outcome, anecdotal
comments, etc. over the course of a school year, including history
• Configuration options including contact reasons, outcomes, followup date, etc.
• View/print cumulative counselor contact history for any student
• View/manage counseling records
• Print list of contacts
• Permit a followup date for any counseling contact
• Manage rules and guidelines
• Incident reports
24. How important is a School Guidance/Counseling system for your district?
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 10
25. Do you have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) Management system in your district?
IEP management systems generally provide the following features:
• Forms management including referrals, meeting notes, prior written notices as well as e
signatures, evaluations report forms and design forms
• Manage library content, including goals and prescriptions
• Manage plans such as student accommodation plan, individual language learner plan,
individual compensatory plan, etc.
• Section 504 management compliance
• Monitor individual student progress
26. How important is an IEP Management system for your district?
27. Do you have a Library Management system in your district?
Library management systems generally provide the following features:
• Acquisitions
• Book and content cataloging
• Circulation
• Serials: periodicals and other subscriptions
• Multimedia
• Overdue materials tracking
• Barcoding

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

Page 11
28. How important it s a Library Management system for your district?
29. Do you have a Test Analysis system in your district?
Test analysis systems generally provide the following features:
• Robust import capability (i.e., national, state and local assessments; information from a
Student Information System; and student academic grades and attendance)
• Support report format and styles such as dashboards with drilldown, text, charts,
graphs, etc.
• Support report groupings such as district, school, teacher, class and student;
demographics or programs; cohorts; custom groupings; standards
• Support reporting periods such as singleyear, multiyear, custom date ranges, etc.
• Support output medium for reports including print, PDF, Excel CSV and SAS
30. How important is a Test Analysis system for your district?

Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 12
The group of questions below address data systems for school management or "Back Office" purposes in your school
district.
31. Do you have a Finance system in your district?
Finance systems generally provide the following features:
• Accounts payable capabilities
• Accounts receivable capabilities
• Controlling/budgeting capabilities
• Fixed assets management capabilities
• Other capabilities include calendar and support for parent and child account codes
32. How important is a Finance system for your district?

"Back Office" Systems

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 13
33. Do you have a Human Resource Management system in your district?
Human resource management systems generally provide the following features:
• Personnel/employee administration including personal information, benefits and
termination
• Time management (e.g., time clocks, etc.)
• Organization management
• Recruitment/talent management
• Training and development
• Payroll management
• Selfservice center
• Manager center
34. How important is a Human Resource Management system for your district?

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 14
35. Do you have a Student Information System in your district?
Student information systems generally provide the following features:
Discipline and behavior management
Grades reporting and transcripts management
Health and Immunization records management
Class scheduling management
Parent portal
Student personal information
Manage student absences
Messaging among stakeholders
School calendar functions
36. How important is a Student Information System for your district?
37. How important were the following factors when selecting your current Student
Information System (SIS)?
Not important
at all
Not too
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
Cost nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Flexibility (it is easily customized) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Continuity (changing would be disruptive or costly) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Usability (this SIS is easy to use) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Parent Access (this SIS provides a parent portal to student information) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Availability (all the modules I need) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Training (vendor provides training for teachers) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Support (vendor offers support) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj
Other (please specify)

Page 15
38. On the following factors, how would you rate your satisfaction with your current SIS?
39. Do you have a Procurement system in your district?
Procurement systems generally provide the following features:
• Purchasing
• Inventory management
• Vendor management
• Materials planning
• Warehouse management
• Workflow/approval
• Plant maintenance
40. How important is a Procurement system for your district?
Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very Satisfied
Cost nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Flexibility nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Usability nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Parent Access nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Availability nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Training nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Support nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Other (please specify)

nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 16
41. Do you have a Substitute Management system in your district?
Substitute management systems generally provide the following features:
• Substitute pool management
• Manage absences and substitute assignments
• Communication tools
42. How important is a Substitute Management system for your district?


nmlkj

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
Extremely important

nmlkj
Very important

nmlkj
Somewhat important

nmlkj
Not too important

nmlkj

nmlkj

Page 17
The following questions address your relative perceptions of data systems and datarelated initiatives currently active in
your school district.
43. Of the following educational data systems, please identify the five (5) most important to
your district?

General Perceptions of Educational Data Systems
Assessment Systems Student Centric

gfedc
Learning Management Systems Teacher Centric

gfedc
Professional Development Systems

gfedc
Content Management Systems

gfedc
Educator Evaluation Systems

gfedc
Progress Monitoring/RTI Systems

gfedc
Credit Recovery Systems

gfedc
Collaboration and Communication Systems

gfedc
Career Education Systems

gfedc
Nutrition and Food Management Systems

gfedc
Transportation Systems

gfedc
Guidance/Counseling Systems

gfedc
IEP Management Systems

gfedc
Library Management Systems

gfedc
Student Information Systems

gfedc
Test Analysis System

gfedc
Finance Systems

gfedc
Human Resource Systems

gfedc
Procurement

gfedc
Substitute Management

gfedc

Page 18
44. How important is data use for the following strategic initiatives in your district?
Not important at all Not too important
Somewhat
important
Very important Extremely important
Measuring success of early childhood
providers
nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Implementing a teacher effectiveness
framework
Measuring student perceptual information nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Improving special education services nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Offering credentialbased career
education
Measuring the collegegoing and college
success rates of district graduates

Page 19
The following questions address the costs associated with educational data systems in your school district.
45. Please estimate the annual cost for all educational data systems (Teaching and
Learning, Administrative, and "Back Office") in your district?
46. Please estimate (to the nearest person) the number of fulltime employees devoted to
managing student information systems and accountability submissions in your district?

Costs of Educational Data Systems
$ per year
# of fulltime employees

Page 20
Finally, the following questions address your perceptions of the role of the Nebraska Department of Education relative to
educational data systems.
47. Given the right conditions (e.g., price, features, support, etc.) how likely would your
district be to join an optional statewide/regional collaborative for:

Support Role of Nebraska Department of Education
Extremely
unlikely
Very
unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Extremely
likely
Assessment Systems Student Centric nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Learning Management Systems Teacher Centric nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Professional Development Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Content Management Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Educator Evaluation Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Progress Monitoring/RTI Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Credit Recovery Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Collaboration and Communication Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Career Education Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Nutrition and Food Management Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Transportation Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Guidance/Counseling Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
IEP Management Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Library Management Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Student Information Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Test Analysis System nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Finance Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Human Resource Systems nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Procurement nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Substitute Management nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Hello,

Welcome to the Nebraska Survey of Educational Data Systems.

Members of the Nebraska Education Technology Association (NETA) are invited to provide information that will inform an
interim study to the Nebraska Legislature prompted by LR 264. This study will examine Nebraska's educational data
systems to including questions of adequacy, quality, cost, and transparency.

We appreciate you taking a few minutes to provide responses to the following questions on behalf of your school district.
The questionnaire contains about 5 items and should take less than 5 minutes to complete.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Dean Folkers at dean.folkers@nebraska.gov.

Thank you for your participation!

Welcome and Introduction

APPENDIX E: SURVEY OF NETA MEMBERSHIP

Please tell us more about your work situation.
1. Which of the following best describes the general category of your work?

NETA Member Information
*

School/district Educator (teacher, paraprofessional, etc.)

nmlkj
School/district Principal

nmlkj
School/district Technology Staff

nmlkj
School/district Administrative Staff (nonsuperintendent)

nmlkj
District Administrator (superintendent)

nmlkj
ESU Technology Staff

nmlkj
ESU Professional Development Staff

nmlkj
ESU Administrative Staff

nmlkj
Other

nmlkj

2. For which Nebraska school district are you employed?

NETA Member Information (continued)
*
Select District Name from the following:
Your school district 6

The following questions address your relative perceptions of "Teaching and Learning" data systems in your school
district. These educational data systems generally provide the following features:

Assessment Systems Studentcentric:
Manage, assign, deliver and score student assessments
Manage test items and forms including question types, questions, answers, rationale, etc.
Author, review and approve workflows and tools
Scoring tools
Manage test setup options

Learning Management Systems Teachercentric:
Browse/search course catalog and view course description/content
Complete pretest/posttest
Complete course evaluation
View/print transcript and certificate
Manage learning activities, assign/schedule or publish, and archive
Course/section selfregistration

Professional Development Systems:
View/print calendar with scheduled and completed evaluations, course sections, etc.
Brick and mortar classroom, online, and asynchronous learning
View/print certificate and transcripts
Progress reports
Override class enrollment
Manage educator goal plans and coaching plans

Educator Evaluation Systems:
View, complete, submit and approve an evaluation
Create and schedule cycles and individual evaluations for educators, teachers, and principals
Manage evaluation model frameworks and tools
Manage and deliver surveys
Administer and assign evaluations to educators
Monitor progress

Progress Monitoring/RTI Systems:
Student progress monitoring tools by stage of intervention
Set intervention levels of intensity
Manage resources: general education and special education teachers and specialists
Monitor learning rate and level of individual student performance
Ongoing student assessment
Tiered instruction
Parental reports on student progress

Credit Recovery Systems:
Section scheduling supports students across schools, or within same school
Pretest/Posttest
Facetoface studentteacher interaction
Manage course catalog, including core and elective
Independent completion option

Collaboration and Communication Systems:
Chat, Wiki, blogs
Discussion boards
Staff collaboration and conferencing

Career Education Systems:

General Perceptions of Educational Data Systems

Manages student progress toward industry certifications
Identifies postsecondary options based on career interest inventories
Tracks participation in career education programs
Manages student personal learning plans
Provides occupational information by career clusters/pathways
3. Of the following educational data systems, please identify the three (3) most important to
you:

Assessment Systems Student Centric

gfedc
Learning Management Systems Teacher Centric

gfedc
Professional Development Systems

gfedc
Content Management Systems

gfedc
Educator Evaluation Systems

gfedc
Progress Monitoring/RTI Systems

gfedc
Credit Recovery Systems

gfedc
Collaboration and Communication Systems

gfedc
Career Education Systems

gfedc

For the following group of questions, please consider systems BEYOND what is provided by your school district.
4. Are you using additional data systems to support teaching and learning, aside from the
tools provided by your school district? (For example, a classroom social media page or
online content.)

Other Data Systems to Support Teaching and Learning

Yes

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

5. Please identify any additional systems you use:

6. Are any of these systems obtained at a personal cost to you? (For example, do you pay
for a subscription)

Other Data Systems to Support Teaching and Learning (continued)
55
66

Yes

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

7. Please estimate the annual cost to you, personally, for the use these additional systems.

Other Data Systems Estimated Personal Costs
$ per year

The Nebraska Department of Education will be hosting virtual focus groups to gather more indepth information about the
Nebraska's educational data systems. The focus group arranged for NETA members will be held on Monday, June 30
from 1:30 3:30 pm CST.
8. Are you interested and available to participate in the virtual focus group on Monday,
June 30 at 1:30 3:30 pm CST?
(If you select yes below, we will send you more information about how to access the NETA
virtual focus group)

NETA LR 264 Focus Group Invitation

Yes

nmlkj
No

nmlkj

9. Please provide your contact information below.

Contact Information
Name:
School/Organization:
Email Address:

APPENDIX F: REFERENCES
Data Quality Campaign. (2014). Who Uses Student Data. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/find-resources/who-uses-student-data/
Data Quality Campaign. (2013). Nebraska State Analysis. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from Data Quality
Campaign website: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/pdf/stateprofiles/NE.pdf.
Gross, B., and Jochim, A. (eds.). (2013). Prioritizing Productivity. The SEA of the Future, 2. San Antonio,
TX: Building State Capacity & Productivity Center at Edvance Research, Inc.
NDE CIP Toolkit. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from Nebraska Department of Education Web Site:
http://www.education.ne.gov/CIPToolkit/index.html.
Park, S., Hironaka, S., Carver, P. & Nordstrum, L. (2013). Continuous Improvement in Education.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from:
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/carnegie-foundation_continuous-
improvement_2013.05.pdf.
Smarick, A., and Squire, J. (2014). The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar. Retrieved from
the Thomas B. Fordham Institute for Advancing Educational Excellence website:
http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-education-agency-at-the-helm-not-the-oar.

APPENDIX G: LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION 264
One Hundred Third Legislature First Session
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION 264
Introduced by Scheer, 19.
Purpose: The purpose of this resolution is to examine the education data system. The study shall
include an assessment of the adequacy of the current data system maintained by the State Department
of Education to provide timely access to relevant and accurate data to meet various needs, including
information for teachers in public schools about student achievement in their classrooms, objective
research regarding educational practices, data for policy formation and review, and accountability to the
public regarding the performance of the public schools. This study shall include, but not be limited to, an
examination of the following:
1) The costs of the data system;
2) Legislative access and public access to the department’s data system;
3) The role and inter-relationships between the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System, the
Consolidated Data System, the State of the Schools Report, and the Statewide Longitudinal
Data System as developed pursuant to federal grant funding;
4) Timelines and access to financial information related to school spending, budgets, taxes, and
state aid;
5) Adequacy of school staff data in the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System in relation
to teacher and classified staff qualifications, assignments, degree level, college credits, and
experience; and
6) Any other issue related to the education data system that the study committee deems important.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ONE HUNDRED THIRD
LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA, FIRST SESSION:
1. That the Education Committee of the Legislature shall be designated to conduct an interim study
to carry out the purposes of this resolution.
2. That the committee shall upon the conclusion of its study make a report of its findings, together
with its recommendations, to the Legislative Council or Legislature.

APPENDIX H: COMPLETE BUDGET ESTIMATE
Year 1
FY 2016
SY 2015-2016
Year 2
FY 2017
SY 2016-2017
Year 3
FY 2018
SY 2017-2018
Nebraska Education Infrastructure Activities and Objectives
Identify and collectively procure state-sponsored SIS(s)
Support SIS Vendor Ed-Fi Interfaces 166,667$ 166,667$ 166,667$
Support assessment vendor Ed-Fi interfaces 166,667 166,667 166,667
Other source system interfaces to Ed-Fi (HR,SRS, applications) 250,000 250,000 250,000
Support transfer to state supported systems in years 2 and 3 166,667 166,667 166,667
Develop identity management solution for statewide single sign-on 100,000 100,000 100,000
ESUCC Infrastructure 500,000 500,000 500,000
Infrastructure scaling and security audit activities 250,000 250,000 250,000
Total Contractual Expenditures 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
New Positions
Chief of Staff 60,523 60,523 60,523
Chief Technology Officer 68,502 68,502 68,502
Lead 60,523 60,523 60,523
Senior 55,047 55,047 55,047
Analyst 50,099 50,099 50,099
Analyst 50,099 50,099 50,099
Total Salary Expenditures 344,793 344,793 344,793
Benefits Expenditures 165,264 165,264 165,264
Operating Expenditures 23,805 23,805 23,805
Travel Expenditures 10,395 10,395 10,395
Equipment Expenditures 60,360 - -
Nebraska Education Infrastructure Total 2,204,617$ 2,144,257$ 2,144,257$
NDE Accountability Data System Objectives
Statewide rollout with dual submissions (rollout plan based on SIS vendor) 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Develop and validate state accountability reports 500,000 500,000 500,000
Develop business rules and validation for automatic accountability submissions 250,000 250,000 250,000
Develop and validate federal accountability report submissions 500,000 500,000 500,000
Develop district review and approval infrastructure 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Positions
Director, Accountability Data Systems 68,502 68,502 68,502
Program Specialist III 55,047 55,047 55,047
Database Analyst Lead 60,523 60,523 60,523
Database Analyst Senior 55,047 55,047 55,047
Database Analyst 50,099 50,099 50,099
NDE Accountability Data System Total 2,579,252$ 2,541,572$ 2,541,572$
Nebraska Department of Education Infrastructure Activities
NDE will reduce the burden of
accountability data submissions on
districts through automated process
leveraging the Ed-Fi infrastructure.
NDE will leverage the Ed-Fi
infrastructure to connect source
systems and drive down costs.
Biennium Budget Request

Year 1
FY 2016
SY 2015-2016
Year 2
FY 2017
SY 2016-2017
Year 3
FY 2018
SY 2017-2018
NDE Education Intelligence System Objectives
Dashboard statewide rollout 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Dashboard updates and extensions 500,000 500,000 500,000
District data warehouses and reporting layer 333,333 333,333 333,333
District data warehouse security layer (with and without de-identification) 250,000 250,000 250,000
NDE data warehouse cubes and BI layer 166,667 166,667 166,667
New Positions
Chief Privacy Officer 79,873 79,873 79,873
Director, Data Research and Evaluation 68,502 68,502 68,502
Database Analyst Lead 60,523 60,523 60,523
Database Analyst Senior 55,047 55,047 55,047
NDE Education Intelligence System Total 2,085,080$ 2,035,720$ 2,035,720$
Help Desk & Support
Expand help-desk support to include Year 1,2 & 3 systems 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
Develop professional development curriculum on Year 1,2 & 3 systems 50,000 50,000 50,000
Integrate statewide ticketing system for "virtual help desk" 166,667 166,667 166,667
Level 4 Support and Contracts 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total Contractual Expenditures 766,667 766,667 766,667
New Positions
Director, Project Management Office 68,502 68,502 68,502
IT Help Desk Specialist Senior 50,099 50,099 50,099
IT Help Desk Specialist 41,706 41,706 41,706
IT Help Desk Specialist 41,706 41,706 41,706
Project Manager 50,099 50,099 50,099
Project Manager 50,099 50,099 50,099
Help Desk & Support Total 1,304,821$ 1,264,223$ 1,264,225$
Total NDE DRE Capacity Building 8,173,770$ 7,985,772$ 7,985,774$
NDE will create education
intelligence - access to actionable
insight - through a warehouse,
business intelligence tools, and
increased internal capacity.
NDE, along with the ESUCC and
ESU's, will provide technical support
for Nebraska education data systems
through a virtual help desk and
coordinated knowledge transfer.

Year 1
FY 2016
SY 2015-2016
Year 2
FY 2017
SY 2016-2017
Year 3
FY 2018
SY 2017-2018
NE Instructional Improvement SystemObjectives
Identify and collectively procure state-sponsored systems
Support vendors in integrating with SSO and state data system 166,667$ 166,667$ 166,667$
Provide PD for districts 83,333 83,333 83,333
System licenses paid by state 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
App Store
Survey Resources and Tools
New Positions
Director, Instructional Improvement System 68,502 68,502 68,502
Education Specialist IV 68,502 68,502 68,502
Program Specialist III 60,523 60,523 60,523
Applications Developer Lead 60,523 60,523 60,523
Applications Developer Senior 55,047 55,047 55,047
Applications Developer 50,099 50,099 50,099
Applications Developer 50,099 50,099 50,099
NE Instructional Improvement System Total 5,975,358$ 5,919,718$ 5,919,718$
Total NDE DRE Budget Issue Requests 14,149,128$ 13,905,490$ 13,905,492$
NDE will build the capacity of
Nebraska educators to continuously
improve the quality of instruction for
students through integrated,
efficient systems. This will serve as
an application store.

NE Data Systems Legislative Study

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to NE Data Systems Legislative Study (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

NE Data Systems Legislative Study