SB 5843

SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5843

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As Reported By Senate Committee On:
Early Learning & K-12 Education, February 26, 2007
Ways & Means, March 5, 2007

Committee Activity: Early Learning & K-12 Education: 2/15/07, 2/26/07 [DPS-WM, w/oRec].

Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5843 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass and be referred to Committee on Ways & Means.Signed by Senators McAuliffe, Chair; Tom, Vice Chair; Clements, Eide, Hewitt, Hobbs, Kauffman, Oemig, Rasmussen, Weinstein and Zarelli.

Minority Report: That it be referred without recommendation.Signed by Senators Holmquist, Ranking Minority Member; and Brandland.

Majority Report: That Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5843 be substituted therefor, and the second substitute bill do pass.Signed by Senators Prentice, Chair; Fraser, Vice Chair, Capital Budget Chair; Pridemore, Vice Chair, Operating Budget; Zarelli, Ranking Minority Member; Brandland, Carrell, Fairley, Hatfield, Hewitt, Hobbs, Keiser, Kohl-Welles, Oemig, Parlette, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Schoesler and Tom.

Minority Report: That it be referred without recommendation.Signed by Senator Honeyford.

Background: In 2002, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) began developing the Core Student Record System (CSRS), which assigns each student a unique student identification number and collects demographic and other information to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In the 2006 supplemental budget, OSPI received a $2.9 million appropriation along with a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to begin developing a statewide longitudinal data system.

CSRS is designed to reduce the number of data collections required annually and to respond to federal and state reporting requirements. OSPI annually collects various data from school districts through CSRS. The long-term goal of this system is for reliable information to be regularly submitted and available for analysis and use by school districts and others. The data will show student course-taking patterns, student transcripts, teacher qualifications and assignments, and other information. OSPI has completed a pilot phase of the new system with selected school districts and one Educational Service District (ESD).

Summary of Bill: By the 2008-09 school year, each school district must collect and electronically submit to OSPI the following information for each course offered in each school: (1) the certification number associated with the teacher assigned to teach the course; (2) the statewide student identifier for each student enrolled in the course; (3) the grade level of the course; and (4) the subject matter of the course. In addition, for each teacher assigned to teach a course, the school district must submit an indicator of whether the teacher meets the definition of "highly-qualified" under NCLB, and the manner by which the teacher meets the definition.

By the 2009-10 school year, for each secondary school, school districts must submit the following: (1) for each course offered, a course code based on the Classification of Secondary School Courses by the National Center for Education Statistics, which must also be recorded on the transcript of each secondary student enrolled in the course; (2) the course schedule for each enrolled student; and (3) the course schedule for each teacher providing instruction.

By the 2010-11 school year, school districts must submit human resource data related to attrition and mobility of teachers and other certificated instructional and administrative staff, with elements defined by OSPI in collaboration with the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB). For each applicable student, districts must also submit the student's scores on college placement tests, college entrance exams, and advanced placement tests.

The data elements outlined in the bill are only the minimum elements required for collection by OSPI. OSPI must develop definitions and protocols for the collection and submission of the data elements and may require school districts to submit additional elements for purposes of reporting enrollment, assessment, financial, personnel, or other information as required by law, rule, or policies adopted by OSPI. The timelines for submitting data elements to OSPI do not preclude it from pilot testing collection and submission of data elements with school districts before the elements are required from all districts.

No later than the beginning of the 2007-08 school year, OSPI will develop standards for school data systems that focus on validation and verification of data entered into the systems to ensure accuracy and compatibility of data. The standards must address, but are not limited to, the following topics: (1) date validation; (2) code validation, which includes gender, race or ethnicity, and other code elements; (3) decimal and integer validation; and (4) required field validation as defined by state and federal requirements. All school districts must meet OSPI standards by the 2008-09 school year for any student information system used to collect and submit data, and by the 2010-11 school year for any student data system used to collect and submit data.

Each program leading to educator certification approved by PESB will assign a unique identifier, in a format prescribed by OSPI, to each candidate at the beginning of the candidate's enrollment in the program. OSPI may accept electronic signatures on applications for educator certification.

OSPI and the ESDs must provide training to district personnel on data collection and submission, and ways to use the data to inform decision making and classroom instruction. By 2008-09 school year, OSPI must develop and disseminate recommended guidelines for training, professional development, certification, and compensation of school data quality specialists.

EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY RECOMMENDED SUBSTITUTE AS PASSED COMMITTEE (Early Learning & K-12 Education): To the extent funds are appropriated, OSPI will conduct a feasibility study on establishing a statewide longitudinal student-teacher data system. A preliminary set of data elements must be developed by December 2007. The feasibility study will include piloting the collection of the preliminary set of identified data elements in a minimum of five schools. OSPI will provide a final report to the Legislature by November 1, 2008. The study will look at the costs associated with staffing and the related impacts on schools and school districts from having to collect the recommended data elements and consideration of ways to reduce duplicate reporting of data. OSPI must consult a variety of research and education organizations in conducting the study.

EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY RECOMMENDED SECOND SUBSTITUTE AS PASSED COMMITTEE (Ways & Means): Better understanding the state educator workforce is added to the primary purpose of the data system. The pilot studies dealing with assessing the impacts of the data collection will involve two school districts (one over 20,000 students and one less than 2,000 students), rather than five schools. The Professional Educator Standards Board, the State Board of Education, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, the Washington Association of School Business Officials and the Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Preparation are added to the groups involved and/or consulted in the feasibility study.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony (Early Learning & K-12 Education): PRO: It is important to get real data from schools. Accepting electronic signatures is important in online applications for certifications. State policy makers do not have access to data to see if their decisions were the right decisions. The data center will allow more thorough studies. This bill starts the process of giving school districts the support needed to collect data. Currently, it is very difficult to have comprehensive studies because there is a lack of data.

CON: Collecting data is costly and the Legislature needs to consider whether the data collected is useful to teachers or just policy makers. If just for policy makers, then it would be hard to support this bill. There is a need to look at what is being asked for and whether it helps teachers.

OTHER: Requiring a unique identifier for certification candidates just adds one more layer of complexity. Graduates can be tracked so maybe using that number to track teachers throughout would be better.

Persons Testifying (Early Learning & K-12 Education): PRO: Nasue Nishida, Professional Educator Standards Board; Jeanne Harmon, Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession; Lucinda Young, Washington Education Association; Joe Egon, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

CON: Allen Jones, Washington Association of School Business Officials.

OTHER: Bob Cooper, Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony (Ways & Means): PRO: This is about developing ways to make the data collection less burdensome for school districts and schools, and at the same time to get information that we need to make informed public policy decisions. This will also allow schools to have better information to use in designing and implementing programs aimed at improving instruction. The teacher preparation programs should be consulted as part of the feasibility study.

OTHER: By funding a feasibility study first, this avoids creating an unfunded mandate on school districts. However, at the completion of the study, the state needs to be committed to providing the resources to cover the impact on school districts. The Washington Association of School Business Officials should be one of the organizations consulted during the feasibility study.

Persons Testifying (Ways & Means): PRO: Senator Oeming, prime sponsor, Bob Cooper, Washington Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

OTHER: Mitch Denning, Alliance of Education Associations.