Release: #04-58
July 1, 2004

Contact: Ann Bancroft
E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov
Phone: 916-319-0818

SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell announced significant progress today in his initiative to reduce the burden placed on California schools and districts by eliminating unnecessary requests for data from Sacramento.

Since O'Connell initiated the Superintendent's Paper Reduction Initiative last February, the California Department of Education (CDE) has eliminated 16 out of 154 data collections, or over 10 percent of the information required by the department from local education agencies, schools, programs, and other entities in the K-12 system. Another 11 data collections, or an additional 7 percent, will be eliminated next year. That will result in a total reduction of 37 percent of the data collections over which CDE has control.

"One of my top priorities as Superintendent is to reduce the bureaucratic burden we in Sacramento place on school districts," O'Connell said. "For example, districts and schools were asked to collect and report on student ethnicity 40 different ways. That's time and money that should be spent in the classroom, improving student achievement," O'Connell said. Each piece of data collected from a school district costs approximately $315, according to a recent CDE survey.  

Data about our schools and students are vitally important, used to hold schools accountable, and inform policymakers about how to best serve students, O'Connell stressed. In order to demonstrate progress, states, districts, and schools must be able to collect and manage their student data.

"For years, however, there was little or no oversight to determine whether data requests were redundant, whether they were still necessary, or could and should be simplified," said O'Connell.  

O'Connell is also taking a proactive approach to reducing data collections by directing his staff to get involved at the federal level when new data collection is proposed. He also wants to encourage local schools and districts to help the department push back on proposed new data collections.

"I'm not pressing a 'No Data' campaign, but a 'Just Ask Why' campaign," O'Connell said. "By next year, my department will have eliminated fully 37 percent of the reports for data we ask of school districts. That will free up time and money now spent on bureaucracy, and put it back into our classrooms where it belongs."

# # # #

Attachment

Superintendent's Paper Reduction Initiative:
Reducing the Reporting Burden on Local Education Agencies
July 1, 2004

Background/Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has increased the demand for data by holding states, districts and schools accountable for student achievement, teacher qualifications, and school safety. The ability of schools and districts to collect and manage data varies widely across the state. In addition, state collections of education data have been governed by often overlapping and duplicative state and federal legislative requirements. Currently, the California Department of Education (CDE) is administering 154 data collections that gather information from local education agencies (LEAs), schools, programs and other entities in the K-12 system. Seventy percent (70%) of these data collections are mandated by the federal government, leaving 28 percent of CDE data collections with no mandate. 1 In February, Superintendent O'Connell announced his Superintendent's Paper Reduction Initiative to reduce the reporting burden the California Department of Education (CDE) places on local education agencies (LEAs).

Summary of Concrete Actions Divisions Are Taking

Data Management Information Programs limited this first summary to actions that are concrete and measurable. In some cases, these numbers depend on actions taken in the budget process. If funds are cut, some divisions may be more willing or required to eliminate data collections.

Of the 154 data collections, 16 (over 10 percent) will be eliminated altogether by July 1, 2004 with another 11 (7 percent) being eliminated within the next year. 2 In addition, for those data collections that remain, CDE has identified an additional 1,075 data elements for elimination after July 1, 2004.   Since seventy percent of the data collections are mandated by the federal government, by next year the CDE will eliminate thirty-seven percent (37%) of the data collections within its purview.

Systemic Problems

The following are some of the systemic forces underlying the current demand for data:

• Impulsive Data Requests From Legislature - Due to technological advances, a misconception exists that information is free and just one click away. When legislation is passed, there is often little understanding of the time and costs involved in developing systems for gathering and compiling data. As a result, often to satisfy public demands, federal and state policy makers require new data with little or no advance notice. This burden is passed on to CDE, and then on to LEAs. There are currently more than 150 bills moving through the California legislature with data collection implications. Additionally, there are 20 proposed federal data collections.
• Accountability Trend Demands an Increase for Data - Adding to the demand for data is a trend toward performance-based systems that measure success primarily by assessment results. This shift causes a huge data-related burden on LEAs with little or no funding to cover costs of getting the data. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has dramatically increased the demand for data.
• Hard-Copy Signatures Drive Some Paper-based Collections - Fifty-eight (38 percent) of CDE's data collections appear to be on paper only. Some paper-based collections may have been created solely to obtain a hard copy signature as a certification. While one division has already implemented an on-line certification process, others have concerns about future liabilities or audit exceptions that might arise from not having a hard-copy signature. CDE needs to take a systemic approach for collecting certifications.

Action Items

This initiative will succeed to the extent we take a systemic approach to lessening the burden. This means we cannot focus solely on the short-term results, but need to put a framework in place that will lead to sustained, long-term results. It means recognizing and confronting internal and external forces that are contributing to the problem. To increase data quality and reduce the burden, Superintendent O'Connell has called for CDE to take the following actions:

1. Establish the Data Resource Guide (a data clearinghouse) through a comprehensive, ongoing self-assessment of all data elements within all of its data collections. This is no easy undertaking — it will take significant time and staff resources. These self-assessments would involve challenging whether every question (data element) on each data collection is necessary and identifying which questions (data elements) could be dropped without jeopardizing operations or compliance with federal and state laws.
2. Elimination of non-mandated data collections or collections without legitimate operational need.
3. Reduce the number of data elements needed within mandated collections and a reduction in the narrative questions for grant applications and reports.
4. Hold federal and state government accountable for their roles in generating LEA reporting burden. Establish a strong structure for feedback to the federal and state entities that demand data; enlist LEAs to help CDE gauge the value, reasonableness, and cost associated with proposed and existing data collections.
5. Support and encourage CDE management to challenge new demands and identify demands that are unreasonable and will result in undue burden on LEAs.

1. Challenge estimated workloads if they are unrealistic and/or unreasonable and do not reflect the complexity and size of California's system.
2. Establish a communication network with LEAs to alert them to pending federal collections.
3. Make LEAs aware of situations where last-minute data collections being administered by CDE are because of delays at the federal level.
4. Seek legislation where data are essential to CDE's operation, but not mandated.
5. Create a structure for honest feedback from LEAs to CDE on its data collections so we can target this reduction of the burden initiative where it matters most to the LEAs. 3

1. Continue building a strategic approach to IT projects.

1. Give priority to projects that transcend more than one program.
2. Establish an annual executive-level review of CDE's application portfolio (a list of all software applications, IT concepts) to align IT efforts with business strategy and priorities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Note: the Data Resource Guide (DRG), the source for this information, contains self-reported data from various divisions within the California Department of Education (CDE).

2 These projections depend on budget outcome and IT project priorities/resources/timelines.

3 This structure might include establishing a policy that every data collection that CDE administers include an optional response from LEAs that indicate how many hours it took the LEA to compile data.