Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Data Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee asks staff for cost study on Aspire and alternatives; seeks Ed‑Fi interoperability estimates
Summary
The finance committee directed staff to return next month with projected costs to bring the state‑provided Aspire student information system to Ed‑Fi/UCIMS interoperability standards, estimates for LEAs to transition to other vendors, and projected maintenance costs for Aspire and vendor systems. The motion passed unanimously.
The committee considered the future of the state‑run Aspire student information system (SIS) and directed staff to return with detailed cost estimates and comparisons.
Background: HB 508 (2025) appropriated $10 million in one‑time funds for SIS work, and the legislature directed the board to assemble a stakeholder group to evaluate options. Staff reported that Aspire currently supports 103 LEAs and approximately 111,111 students (about 12% of statewide student counts) and that six state FTEs are dedicated to Aspire development and support. Jared Felt, USBE IT director, said the team is working on requested integrations (examples: Clever, Canvas) and feature updates, but a small developer staff and a backlog mean work proceeds slowly.
Committee concerns: Members highlighted that a modest state support team may be insufficient if Aspire is scaled further and that one‑time funds are likely not adequate to bring Aspire and LEA systems to full Ed‑Fi/UCIMS interoperability and to meet future reporting, quality and reliability requirements. Members also raised competition concerns if Aspire were expanded without charging LEAs, and asked whether charging LEAs for use is permissible and how a shift in vendor choices might affect long‑term costs.
Motion and outcome: Chair Davis moved — and the committee approved unanimously — a request that staff return in June with: 1) costs to bring Aspire to Ed‑Fi/UCIMS standards, including integration with local vendor platforms and anticipated future board or legislative requirements; 2) estimates of costs and transition needs for LEAs to move from Aspire to commercial vendors; and 3) projected maintenance and sustainment costs for Aspire and comparable vendor solutions (short‑ and long‑term), and notes on who would likely bear ongoing costs (state vs LEA). Jared Felt and staff will gather LEA input as part of the stakeholder process to supply informed estimates.
Why it matters: Student information systems are central to student accounting, reporting and federal compliance; the choice between enhancing a state‑run system and supporting LEA vendor transitions has fiscal, operational and market competition implications.
Next steps: Staff to survey LEAs, consult the Aspire user group, estimate the level of staff and funding needed to achieve Ed‑Fi/UCIMS compliance, and provide comparative cost estimates and recommended next steps at the committee’s June meeting.
