Data Governance Model for the Educational Data Decision

Support System

Kristen Mullaney

• 2004 Decision Support Architecture Consortium (DSAC) evaluated SOM on:o Current & desired capacity for educational decision support &

data managemento No Child Left Behind Act 2001 (Prek-12)o Lt. Governor’s Commission on High Education & Economic

Growth (grades 13-20)

• June 2005, SOM hired CELT Corp to:o Initiate a collaborative data governance processo Plan the scope of work and RFPs for actual design and

implementation for the10 corresponding projects

Background

● Agency partners include, but are not limited to:o Michigan Department of Education (MDE)o Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG)o Department of Management and Budget (DMB, CEPI)o Department of Treasuryo Department of Corrections (DOC)o Department of Community Health (DCH)o Department of Health Services (DHS)o Department of Information Technology (DIT)o Multiple Educational Entities (including LEAs, ISDs and Higher

Education)

Beginning with Data Governance

• WHO:o Those who collect or use educational data

• WHAT – the goalo “Collect Once, Store Once, and Use Many”

• WHY – the benefitso Reducing redundant data collection systems and efforts at the

stateo Aligning collection and reporting timelines to collect data “once”

and maximize its useo Reducing duplicative reporting of data from educational entitieso Maximizing the value of educational data by integrating various

sources to provide stakeholders and policymakers with timely, accurate and high-quality data and useful reports

Beginning with Data Governance

• Three Tiers:o Data Policy Committee

o Data Managers Working Group

o Implementation Team

Interagency Educational Data Governance

● Strategic level:o comprises appropriate State agency executive management

stakeholders who set the mission and performance metrics of collaborative projects that include new development and enhancements to existing data systems.

o members ensure the active participation of key stakeholders and communicate shared work within individual agencies

Data Policy Committee (DPC)

● Tactical level :o comprises individuals primary responsibility for Michigan

educational agency systems of record (a.k.a. source systems), including information about students, assessments, participation in programs, professional certification, finances, human resources and other systems.

o members define data standards and data management best practices for data projects, address issues associated with data standardization and management, and take ownership of data clean-up and performance issues within their respective source systems.

Data Managers Working Group (DMWG)

● Operational level:o comprised primarily of Center for Educational Personnel (CEPI),

partner agency staff members as appropriate, and Department of Information Technology (DIT) personnel assigned to agencies who will actually carry out the design and implementation of system enhancements and collaborative projects

Implementation Team

• Need to be formed from time to time to accomplish work that cannot be effectively done as a large group. o For example: to develop a strawman or draft to present back to

the larger DMWG group for feedback and comments to be incorporated into the final version.

o The DMWG, as a whole, must agree to the final version which will then go before the DPC for feedback and ultimately for approval.

o If agreement cannot be reached by the DMWG, this will be an “issue” that will be brought before the DPC for direction and/or resolution.

DMWG Sub- group

• Participants :o Should be from different offices, areas, and agencies. It may be

a volunteer or assigned position depending on the topic, issues or situation.

o Actively participate in all the sub-group meetings to the best of their ability and schedule

o Complete all work and or action items as volunteered or assigned by the sub-group

o Seek input and feedback from their co-workers and managers in their offices, areas and or department

o Look for solutions to any problems or obstacles they come across

DMWG Sub-group

Data Governance Process

Data Policy Committee

DMWG Sub-group

DMWG Sub-group

DMWG Sub-group

DMWG Sub-group

Data Managers Work Group

Implementation Team

Escalation Process

Communication Process

Communication/Meetings

• DPC – meetings every two months and monthly dashboards reports

• DMWG – monthly meetingso Sub-group – meet 4 -5 times over a two to three month period

• Implementation Team – weekly during high activity otherwise monthly