13:11:46 From tyler.backus : Showing B in Maine right now would be a toxic topic 13:12:44 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : Experience in developing our Ed-Fi collection system is that virtually no one in educational data understands finance :) 13:13:50 From Christopher May, Michigan : Michigan closer to A (with the required disaggregation and site/central sections, of course). Not breaking out different categories of expenditures. 13:14:29 From Thomas Cooley : What exactly would "non-classroom instruction" include anyway? 13:14:42 From tyler.backus : Maine will be implementing Ed Fi standards for finance soon...so maybe we can teach them! 13:14:46 From Patricia Lagarenne- NJ : NJ is also leaning towards A. 13:15:18 From Cindy Brown RI : RI's has a bit more detail but is closer to A for the first year. 13:15:57 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : @tyler.backus Good, we're developing the 3.0 API for Ed-Fi Alliance as part of this project 13:16:46 From Melissa : B - NH 13:17:41 From Thomas Cooley : IA will have more detail - reflective of what we've discussed in FiTWiG 13:20:47 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : NY will probably also have something similar to the IFR--that was the basis for the new state budget report, and we'r etrying to align with that as best we can. 13:21:05 From tyler.backus : We made less breakouts as it was too confusing for the educators, principals, and supers 13:21:26 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : WI same as NY re IFR 13:21:30 From tyler.backus : Correct 13:23:24 From tyler.backus : It is not important until they try to pass a budget 13:23:56 From Sara Shaw (IL) : Our data visualization group has also considered that parents are unlikely to look up financial data unless they first look at outcome data and have questions or issues with the outcomes 13:24:09 From Thomas Cooley : I'd be thrilled if the parents realize the data is there... 13:25:17 From Cindy Brown RI : RI just released it's first data visualizations on the Data Center website. The look will be revamped shortly to include the report card with the required info and a tab to accountability, financial data etc. on other tabs. 13:25:46 From Patricia Lagarenne- NJ : There is so much that varies per school or per district that a simplified number does not present the complete picture. A school with more Title I elements for example will skew any conclusions made by viewing a dollar amount. NJ has all budgets and CAFR's on web for those looking for complete picutres 13:26:50 From Cindy Brown RI : I'm connected via phone but can tell you I agree that the data quickly becomes overwhelming so the intro page to our new report card is a building block process to take you from a high level and allows a user to move deeper for more info. 13:27:14 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : We're anticipating principals are going to be 1 of first 2 audiences for this data (other one being the voucher/choice lobby) 13:31:34 From Donna Nester : MS will publish 17-18 data 13:33:00 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : NY's draft guidance will be ready soon and shared with the Edunomics team for comment :) 13:34:13 From Thomas Cooley : IA does include some LEA choice on coding to the site level (mix of items required and local decision) 13:34:37 From Amy Pattison IN to Katie Hagan - Edunomics (Privately) : IN will use #2, SEA system already in place 13:34:51 From Christopher May, Michigan : Michigan gets LEA files into centralized SEA system, we're similar to IA in we require certain things at school-level, the rest is up to them. Also, can you share link to this file in chat or email after webinar? 13:34:52 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : WI: SEA access 3 for 18-19 & 19-20, 2 for 20-21 onward; LEAs have total flexibility on site/central 13:35:24 From Kara Sperle : MT will choose for districts, but will allow districts to code the actual expenditures to the site level or MT will allocate based on enrollment numbers. 13:36:15 From Marguerite Roza : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YOJ03vXB9Zs-J50ivC_jPeSVVtigHSblhIMpGqSpTpk/edit?usp=sharing 13:36:21 From Patricia Lagarenne- NJ : NJ similiar to MT. 13:36:32 From Cindy Brown RI : RI - LEAs upload full data to SEA system as required by state law. 13:36:43 From Patricia Lagarenne- NJ : Correct! 13:36:59 From Sara Shaw (IL) : @marguerite, can you make it accessible without a Google sign-in? 13:37:12 From Sara Shaw (IL) : Thank you! 13:37:13 From Amy Pattison IN to Katie Hagan - Edunomics (Privately) : Also, IN has a state law reflecting data will be collected at the school level 13:38:43 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : Pensions - does that mean LEA-controlled OPEB, LEA's actuarial share of state system, something else? 13:38:45 From Sara Shaw (IL) : IL - Yes include pre-K both enrollment and $ incurred by the district, Yes include transportation, Yes include food service 13:38:53 From Christopher May, Michigan : clarify "Pensions Included" please? Are these just the regular benefit expenditures into the state pension system? 13:40:08 From tyler.backus : Maine the state still makes the bulk of the payment 13:40:33 From Kara Sperle : MT is excluding pension payments, excluding transportation, excluding food. 13:40:36 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : WI: Including pensions and pre-K, excluding transportation and food service 13:40:37 From Jennifer Okes : Colorado - Pre-K $ and enrollment included, Private $ included, Pension contributions made by LEAs and included, Transportation and Food Service expenditures are included 13:40:56 From Kara Sperle : Pre K is still being discussed 13:41:01 From tyler.backus : Yes, we are including that amount 13:41:04 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : Thx for clarifying on pensions :) 13:41:42 From Thomas Cooley : IA - Yes for pre-K $ and enrollment; pension contributions made by LEAs are included; transportation and food service included 13:41:52 From Christopher May, Michigan : MI - pensions are included, pre-K is still being discussed (and would like to hear what others are doing), private dollars are not being treated any different, transportation and food service are included 13:41:55 From Alenita (AK) : AK: Including pre-K, including transportation and food service 13:42:09 From awillard : WV is including pensions, PreK, Transportation and Food Service. 13:42:14 From Sara Shaw (IL) : Will some of the distinctions on these large categories of pre-K, transportation, and food services affect the IFR? 13:42:32 From awillard : In WV, private is part of state/local. 13:44:01 From Donna Nester : MS is including Pensions, PreK $ & enrollment, private donations, Transportation; excluding Food Service 13:44:40 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : *phew* glad we're not as far behind as I thought we were :) 13:45:54 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : WI has version of IFR table built into the collection app, TBD exactly where/how we're publishing 13:51:15 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : Missed that...is it recorder somewhere? 13:51:18 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : Didn't see the webinar, but we noted their draft rule is retroactive to 17-18 13:52:19 From Thomas Cooley : Trying to figure out how to get it completed for 2018 when states have until 2019 to have school level in place 13:52:46 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : That's not how we read the docs out for comment 13:53:11 From Thomas Cooley : "Optional"... 13:53:13 From Christopher May, Michigan : I found it interesting that they advised only including data in the new fields if you have 100% of districts reporting 100% of school-level data being reported in those. I brought up that this is not consistent with how we'll be handling report cards 13:54:19 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : That'd be great, thanks 13:55:34 From Thomas Cooley : The data collection may add another layer of confusion and potential for conflicting numbers (not the data, per se, but how it is compiled) 13:55:55 From Christopher May, Michigan : I agree 13:57:31 From tyler.backus : We are meeting again in February again, right? 13:57:54 From Sara Shaw (IL) : Another topic: continued discussions of visualizations 13:58:33 From Thomas Cooley : Agree with Sara 13:58:43 From Cindy Brown RI : I agree with Sara 13:59:06 From Christopher May, Michigan : I found the in-person meeting really valuable 13:59:29 From Donna Gunning - Maryland : An inperson meeting would be helpful 13:59:36 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : I think somethign down the road where we could present our states' versions of this would be great 13:59:37 From Daniel Bush - WI DPI : Virtual meetings are good for regular check-ins but an annual in-person is helpful 13:59:38 From Thomas Cooley : In-person is very helpful 13:59:41 From tyler.backus : I find it beneficial to meet once a year in person. 13:59:48 From Bill Biven, Jr. - Nebraska Dept. Of Ed. : in-person 14:00:01 From Cindy Brown RI : In person is beneficial 14:00:01 From Patricia Lagarenne- NJ : Agreed that the in-person meeting is beneficial. 14:00:03 From Sara Shaw (IL) : Let us know if you need any testimonials for philanthropic purposes ;) 14:00:17 From Michael Wiltfong - Oregon : In-person would be good 14:00:53 From tyler.backus : The course is great. 14:01:23 From Brian Cechnicki (NY) : agreed! 14:01:40 From Michael Wiltfong - Oregon : thank you!