Thoughts on a Statewide Student Information System

Lately there has been increased interest in the world of student information systems for centralized state-run systems that aim to replace district-wide systems.  The reasons cited for such a change tend to revolve around convenience and cost.  However, many are questioning the benefits of such a system, and are voicing their skepticism.

Cost

Would a centralized state-run SIS save a state money?  The first thing to consider is the amount local districts have already invested in modern, web-based systems and advanced training to maximize the benefits of those systems.  Are the potential cost savings from having a state-run system enough to outweigh the investment to date? 

Another important consideration is the amount schools must pay for advanced training.  In some states, administrators are required to pay for certification courses before given back-end access to their own data. 

Finally, schools must carefully consider the prospect of being handed the bill for what was initially promised to be a free system.  This happened last year in Kentucky where the state began to charge local schools for the cost of maintaining the centralized state-run system.

Privacy

While the prospect of housing student records on a single, statewide database might seem convenient to some, the question of student privacy is one worth careful consideration.  If student discipline, teacher comments, health records and attendance history were all kept on a statewide system, who’s to say that the information on that system wouldn’t be used for background checks in the future?  

Database administrators at the state level would have access to this data, but would promise not to look at the data and would likely be legally bound not to.  Certainly any vendor implementing a centralized state-run SIS would go to great lengths to reassure districts that information would be kept private, but bugs in software happen.  This is exemplified by one case in Maine where administrators at one school district were able to view the private student information of a student at another district.  In Kentucky, the prospect of tracking all residents of a household raised concerns with stakeholders in school communities.

The concept of a centralized state-run system similar to the DMV is drawing criticism from privacy advocates in Maine and Kentucky.  Students and parents have organized protests and state officials have found themselves at the center of controversy.

Convenience

It is true that a centralized state-run SIS for all students would greatly simplify the data collection process at the state level.  State administrators would be able to reference student data on demand without first asking for permission from local school districts.  This data could potentially be used to provide useful information to the state relating to student performance, identifying at-risk schools and students, as well as under performing teachers.  Teacher performance could be quickly evaluated by the state in near real-time with rapid-response procedures put in place to address situations as they arise.

Of course, any halfway decent, web-based SIS would provide these features at the district level, so the question remains... how would a centralized state-run SIS benefit local schools?

Local school districts may find the advent of a centralized state-run system less convenient.  Would they be able to add, remove or edit the features of the system?  Would they be able to create their own custom reports without outside help?  Would they be able to call the SIS company directly for support, or would they have to deal with a state agency?  Would they be able to integrate their own 3rd party systems such as Transportation Management, Lunch Management and Learning Management Systems?  More often than not, a one-size-fits-all approach offers little flexibility to school districts who have their own culture, business processes and traditions.

Could a centralized state-run system be vulnerable to outages?  A system of this size is typically designed with a great deal of redundancy to prevent system downtime, but this does not preclude such systems from glitches or bugs that cause major problems across the state.  Distributed statewide systems are much less vulnerable to these sorts of problems.

These concerns have been enough to dissuade many school districts from moving to a
“free” centralized state-run system.

• In Maine, three years after the state began implementation of a centralized state-run system, over half of the districts in the state have not migrated, opting instead to pay annual maintenance and support costs for their existing systems.  Others have recently migrated to other systems besides the centralized state-run SIS.
• In Montana, at least 34 public school districts have opted to not use the centralized state-run SIS, including five of the largest school districts in the state.  
• In South Dakota, schools have been using a centralized state-run system since 2002, but several school districts have yet to make the switch.  In March of 2009, Yankton School District selected a different system over the state-run system stating: “We look forward to integrating the web-based grade book, which is vastly superior to the other offerings in the educational technology market."  

The simple answer to the issues of student privacy and local control is to keep student data at the district level, creating a wall of separation between the state and local districts.  This approach has been implemented successfully in several states, including South Carolina and North Dakota where schools maintain their own SIS database with support from the state as needed.

Is this a political question?  You bet it is.  But the current trend suggests that the monumental decision of rolling out a centralized state-run system is being made by select groups of committee members in closed-door meetings.  In fact, in some states these committees are only consultative with no voting authority.  A final decision on a centralized state-run system is often made by a small group at the state level.

This sort of insular decision making rarely ends with successful implementations as frustration and confusion over the state’s agenda conflict with that of local school districts.  States can avoid controversy and nurture an atmosphere of cooperation by ensuring that their efforts include the following considerations:

1. How many districts have recently switched to new web-based systems?
2. What are the “switching again” costs for these districts?
3. Should the statewide system be optional to districts?
4. Is a “free” system effectively a mandate given the current budget climate?
5. To what degree can the state guarantee to cover costs for the statewide system for the next 5 years?
6. Does the proposed statewide system maintain a wall of separation between the state and local districts with districts maintaining their own SIS database?
7. Does the SIS provide an electronic records transfer system to move select student data between districts when a student transfers?
8. Does the SIS provide vertical reporting to the state for select data?
9. Does the statewide SIS committee have broad representation from across the state, including Superintendents, SIS Administrators, IT Directors, Principals, Office Secretaries and Teachers?
10. Does the statewide SIS committee have equal voting authority for the ultimate decision?