1. 2013 MIS Conference 1 M EMORANDA OF U NDERSTANDING (MOU S ): I NTERSTATE AND I NTRASTATE A GREEMENTS Jan Kiehne, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (ConnSCU) Connie Brooks, Iowa Department of Education Baron Rodriguez, AEM Corporation Wednesday, February 13, 2013

2. 2013 MIS Conference C ONNECTICUT 2

3. 2013 MIS Conference Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to enable Perkins reporting Goal o Create MOA specifically for Perkins reporting Challenges o Lack of in-house counsel o No existing agreement to build upon o Running out of time for analysis B ACKGROUND 3

4. 2013 MIS Conference MOA FOR P ERKINS 4 Data Disclosed by BOR Data Returned by DOL First Name Last Name PIDM SSN Employed: Y/N flag

5. 2013 MIS Conference Gathered information on Perkins reporting requirements Reviewed relevant FERPA sections – again Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements Drafted MOA Contacted PTAC PTAC read and provided feedback via conference call Reviewed by in-house counsel Circulated for signatures P ROCESS FOR P ERKINS MOA 5

6. 2013 MIS Conference MOA to enable data linkages for P–20W system Goal: o Create a solid template for participating agency attorneys to modify Challenges: o Agency attorneys’ lack of familiarity with new FERPA guidelines o Wary State Assistant Attorney Generals o Lack of in-house counsel B ACKGROUND 6

7. 2013 MIS Conference MOA FOR P–20W S YSTEM 7

8. 2013 MIS Conference Read relevant FERPA sections Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements Gathered example MOUs through Grads360 Created a draft Asked SST contact for review and was referred to PTAC PTAC read and provided feedback through conference call Made adjustments Circulated to participating agency attorneys Scheduled meeting to review/adjust … finalize … P ROCESS FOR P–20W S YSTEM MOA – P HASE 1 8

9. 2013 MIS Conference Agency attorneys reviewed and developed own versions UCHC Assistant Attorney General got involved and raised larger issues regarding impact of FOIA Discussions revealed that our model was not entirely accurate in its representation of where PII would flow More questions to PTAC More revisions to data sharing agreements Communicated changes among agency attorneys and Data Governing Board members Bundled documents for review by State Attorney Generals Office Status now …. P ROCESS FOR P–20W S YSTEM MOA – P HASE 2 9

10. 2013 MIS Conference Main Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs): -One MOA for each participating agency -Each MOA includes the participating agency, UCHC and BEST -Enables the participating agency to participate in the system and share PII only for the purpose of conducting a data match based upon approved data queries -Meets written requirements under FERPA for “Audit/Evaluation” exception Query Management Document/Agreement (QMD): -One QMD for each data request/query -Each QMD will meet the written requirements under FERPA for data sharing agreements that use the “Audit or Evaluation” exception -Identifies the “Authorized Representative” to conduct evaluation using the matched data -Each agency whose data would be included must sign that they approve before the request can be fulfilled P20 WIN D ATA S HARING A GREEMENTS 10

11. 2013 MIS Conference Which MOA would you like to see? R EVIEW OF MOA 11

12. 2013 MIS Conference Jan R. Kiehne, P20 WIN Program Manager Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education 39 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105 860-493-0236; kiehnej@ct.edukiehnej@ct.edu www.ctregents.org F EEL F REE TO C ONTACT M E 12

13. 2013 MIS Conference I OWA 13

14. 2013 MIS Conference 2012 Grant creates a collaborative team K–12 (part of IDE) Community Colleges (part of IDE) Regents Universities – MOU needed Workforce – MOU needed Each area has a team member and a Steering Committee member I OWA IN C ONTEXT 14

15. 2013 MIS Conference Written Agreement Designate “authorized representative” Specify o Purpose (audit and eval. exception to consent) o PII o Destruction dates and procedures Policies and procedures to ensure privacy provisions of all state and federal laws will be followed FERPA R EQUIREMENTS 15

16. 2013 MIS Conference The *magic* template that only requires search/replace didn’t exist Identify parties and legal provisions for the different parties o IDE and Regents = FERPA to FERPA o IDE and Workforce = FERPA to State Laws Start with “their” template for the “other” verbiage, e.g., severability, termination, etc. P ROCESS H INTS 16

17. 2013 MIS Conference Paranoia and Paranoia? Iowa Exceptionality: State law REQUIRES postsecondary institutions to STORE state-generated educational IDs ( ) R EGENTS AND IDE: FERPA AND FERPA 17

18. 2013 MIS Conference This Agreement is entered into to exchange data needed for Iowa’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) in order to comply with the: America Competes Act (ACA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-69); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111- 5 and 11-8); and State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) programs of 2009 and 2011 (34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II). These initiatives require the IDE to include Regent universities’ data “in the evaluation of K-12 education policy and practice in order to better align state academic content standards and curricula with the demands of postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces.” P URPOSE AND A UTHORITY 18

19. 2013 MIS Conference 1.The number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions within 16 months after high school graduation (ARRA/SFSF indicator C11) and 2.The number of those enrolled students who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit within 24 months of enrollment (ARRA/SFSF indicator C12) 3.The IDE also plans to analyze and report findings related to remedial coursework, graduation rates, and transfers between community colleges and Regent universities (ACA). S PECIFY PII D ATA E LEMENTS 19

20. 2013 MIS Conference One-time reports (e.g., remediation, C11, C12) Process: Replace one-time data with new Original longitudinal storage (enrollment, transfers, awards) Destruction Date = Contract Termination Date Revised longitudinal storage: Replace each year and request full set each year D ATA D ESTRUCTION 20

21. 2013 MIS Conference Original expectations are limited to legally mandated data elements Preliminary discussions for High School Feedback Reports Do not currently support long-term storage 30 days to provide acceptance or rejection of any additional data needed for reporting, or for any new data required for new or different reports R EGENTS P OSTSCRIPTS 21

22. 2013 MIS Conference Different agency, different laws, different needs, different tone Started with recently signed MOU for skeleton Asked for governing laws = state specific IDE FERPA side: o Authorized Representative may store our educational State IDs o Audit and Evaluation purpose W ORKFORCE 22

23. 2013 MIS Conference 1.Shared ownership of linked datasets 2.May be stored for duration of contract (three years) and then destroyed unless new contract 3.Reports aggregate–level data only or de-identified for other parties 4.Veto power: 30 days to accept or reject reports before release 5.Interpretative caveats with any released reports and data sets W ORKFORCE MOU S PECIFICS 23

24. 2013 MIS Conference Fully executed within a few weeks once specifics agreed to; 11 months total Process: o IDE provides name, DOB, and education ID o Workforce matches to DMV/DOT data for SSN o Workforce stores education ID with their SSN Workforce has not asked for any specific education indicators (ITBS, ACT, Grad Status) New attorney revisiting W ORKFORCE P OSTSCRIPTS 24

25. 2013 MIS Conference Purpose is to find dropouts across state lines State-level users only to start with Some interest in opening up for district-level users State would notify district when found so transcripts could be sent Iowa + Nebraska + Kansas + Missouri All eScholar customers I NTERSTATE MOU 25

26. A E S CHOLAR I NTERSTATE ID E X CHANGE DeXs Server Cert DeXs Cert NE Server Cert IA Server Cert KS Server Cert MO Server Cert NE Cert KS Cert IA Cert MO Cert eScholar Data eXchange Service Server (DeXs) Server Certificate IA UID MO UID NE UID KS UID Internet Access Search Result Search Request DeXs Database SSL DeXs Cert Security

27. 2013 MIS Conference This exchange of information between authorized representatives of state educational authorities intended for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that relate to Federal or state supported education programs, specifically the accurate calculation of a party’s graduation rate under 34 CFR 200.19(b) and state reporting requirements under 34 CFR 76.720. P URPOSE 27

28. 2013 MIS Conference PII – Data List Attached Destruction – Absent extenuating circumstances, this will be within ________ of the receipt of the information. The method of destruction shall be ________. Wrangling over ability to re-release to districts – may require specific verbiage, may not be necessary 28 D ETAILS

29. 2013 MIS Conference Attorneys have approved final details Not yet signed, but in the process All working from the same FERPA law Relatively straight-forward I NTERSTATE P OSTSCRIPT 29

30. 2013 MIS Conference Just jump in Key components are the same for “our” FERPA side Accommodate non-FERPA partners’ legal requirements Start with partner’s template if possible Work out the data and exchange details Have each lawyer oversee his/her piece Interstate, have a facilitator if possible (eScholar) C ONCLUSIONS 30

31. 2013 MIS Conference Contact information: Jan R. Kiehne, kiehnej@ct.edukiehnej@ct.edu Connie Brooks, Connie.Brooks@iowa.govConnie.Brooks@iowa.gov Baron Rodriguez, Baron.Rodriguez@aemcorp.comBaron.Rodriguez@aemcorp.com For more information on MOUs: Resource 1: Guidance for Reasonable Methods and Written Agreements (Nov 2011)Guidance for Reasonable Methods and Written Agreements (Nov 2011) Resource 2: Checklist: Data Sharing Agreement (Apr 2012)Checklist: Data Sharing Agreement (Apr 2012) C ONTACTS AND A DDITIONAL R ESOURCES 31