ERIC Identifier: ED435713
Publication Date: 1999-12-00
Author: Vecchioli, Lisa
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Assessment and Evaluation Washington DC.
A Process for Evaluating Student Records Management Software.
Organizing and managing student records into a cohesive and efficient system
might seem like an impossible task. There is a wide array of existing
information and information needs, yet schools are often limited by personnel
and financial concerns. Large districts can be overwhelmed by the sheer number
of students. Further, each institution has its own unique way of keeping track
of and reporting on the details of their student's academic and behavioral data.
To help schools meet this challenge, several vendors market flexible, high-end
software commercial software packages.
Schools need to weigh features and requirements of the software against their
own unique needs, desires and capabilities. This article provides practical
advice on evaluating such high-end record-keeping software products. Emphasis
here is on the evaluation process and the identification of value-based
evaluative criteria. A good discussion on some factual criteria for evaluating
record-keeping software can be found in Wright (1990).
Evaluations often start with a process to identify of the decisions that will
be made. An evaluation of record-keeping software should start with a process to
identify of the individual needs the software product must meet in order to be
considered for purchase. How in-depth this process should be depends on the size
of the school and the number of officials involved in the decision making
process. Large school districts may need to draft detailed requirements and
solicit proposal requests from vendors. Small public or private independent
schools may need to go through a less formal process. Regardless of size and
bureaucratic structure, each school must consider the formation of a school-wide
committee, the role the administrator will take in this process, the
requirements of the school, the design of the system, the implementation of the
chosen product, and the ability to consult the software company.
FORMING A SCHOOL-WIDE COMMITTEE & INFORMATION GATHERING
The first step toward establishing an administrative computing system is
forming a school-wide committee that can provide input for developing
school-specific evaluation criteria, solicit products from vendors, and examine
those products. Connors and Valesky (1986) observe that the primary role of this
committee is to identify which school administrative functions are best suited
for computerization. This group should consist of a representative group of
administrators, teachers, counselors, librarians, and computer experts. Each
member should provide input based on their area of expertise.
Administrators should consider involving other future-users who will have the
most daily contact with the system (i.e., secretaries, clerks, and business
officials). Input from counselors, teachers, and office staff who actually are
responsible for scheduling, student record management, creating report cards,
and other functions should facilitate the most appropriate software selection.
The involvement of these faculty and staff members will familiarize them with
the system's structure and capabilities. In turn, these people will be able to
take on leadership roles in the computerization of school records by performing
such duties as demonstrating particular functions of the software or training
other faculty and staff members. Thus, the inclusion of a wide range of people
on this committee aids in ensuring the eventual smooth integration of the
software into the daily activities of the school.
It is important that all committee members participate in all the evaluation
activities. Attending software demonstrations by vendor sales representatives
provides a forum for committee members to ask questions regarding their specific
areas of expertise. Committee members should also have a chance to use the
system or specific module with which they will eventually work. Many vendors
provide product demonstrations on CD ROM or on a diskette that users can install
on their computer. These product demos enable users to get a sense of what the
software interface looks like, how different modules relate to each other, and
how specific functions work. If the vendor provides the software on a trial
basis, the school may want to consider installing those modules and loading some
school data in order to get a better sense of how the system will function in
their school setting. Because this is time-consuming for the computer
coordinator, schools may want to do this after they have narrowed the decision
down to two or three products.
In addition to needs analysis and product evaluation, committee members
should be given administrative leave to observe how software packages function
at other schools. Regardless of how impressive the sales representative's
demonstration is, a demonstration will not be as revealing as seeing how the
system functions in an actual school setting. Interviewing other schools can
provide committee members with a greater understanding of how the system can
increase their own school's productivity as well as what initial training and
data entry tasks they face.
Once a committee has been established, the
members should examine which administrative functions need to be computerized.
The software packages generally consist of modules that can be purchased
separately and address particular functions such as school records, attendance,
scheduling, and progress (grades or marks). The committee might begin by
examining the current management process of these areas and deciding what
functions could be expedited by automation and how the software must be able to
accommodate for the school's particular method of representing data. For
example, the software system must be able to adapt to how the school calculates
grades as well as how the school chooses to create and format its schedule. Most
reputable vendors provide enough flexibility in their programs to allow for
user-defined fields and a variety of scenarios. However, if a specific need
cannot be met by the software packages under evaluation, schools may have to
make some concessions. If a school's unique needs are known before the software
is purchased, accommodations usually can be made.
As schools begin to delineate how data is currently gathered and used in the
four broad areas addressed by integrated student records management software
(school records, grades, scheduling, and attendance), they should also begin to
establish a priority order for the integration of the selected software product.
It may not be advisable to automate all areas. For example,the needs of a small
private elementary school may not warrant the purchase of the most powerful
scheduling module available in integrated systems. It may be easier for a school
like that to use a generic database program and import data into that program to
create a student's schedule.
After the committee has determined which data management areas need to be
computerized, the committee should prioritize in what order these areas should
be addressed. The school should be guided by three main factors during this
process: the availability of finances, the needs of the school, and the ability
to train school personnel. School funding determines which software systems and
which modules a school committee should consider during the decision process.
The ability to train people to use the system determines how effectively the
system will be used. This is especially troublesome if the software is complex.
Therefore, a committee should consider how well its school can prepare all
faculty and staff members who need to access and input data in the system to
perform required tasks.
The two fundamental issues that a school committee should examine are the
school's capability to enable faculty and staff to make more productive use of
their time and its capability to provide accurate data on individual students
that can be utilized in a way which effectively meets the needs of the students.
The data gathering and reporting abilities of integrated systems allow school
personnel to create fuller descriptions of individual students' progress and
achievement than was previously possible using traditional reports.
Additionally, student records software provides a greater variety of comment,
increases pupil involvement in and responsibility for the reporting process,
assists the integration of curriculum and good pedagogic practice, and produces
a more constructive and positive diagnostic assessment of pupil progress (Wilson
and Armstrong, 1993).
THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Integrated student records
management systems allow for more efficient organization of school data.
Powerful reporting and query capabilities permit administrators to track and
analyze data in ways that were not previously possible. Moreover, integrated
software packages give school or building-level administrators within districts
more independence for gathering and analyzing data. These also keep the
administrators from being "completely dependent on the services of a central or
district data processing manager" (Bozeman and Spuck, 1994, p.42).
Knowing the administrative importance of choosing an effective integrated
student records management software product, it is clear to see that school
officials need to play a vital role in the deciding which administrative
function should be automated. Administrators are able to provide important
information about their school's current and future record keeping needs.
Moreover, school administrators determine the degree to which a software product
will be utilized in order to "contribute to institutional improvement" (Bers,
1992, p. 3).
As the working committee members gather
information about packages, they should consider how the system will ultimately
serve their unique and general institutional needs. A set of criteria should be
drafted in order to compare and evaluate each system. Peter Wright (1990)
suggested "staged approach" to evaluation where "systems are evaluated against
progressively more detailed criteria" (p.218). The first stage of evaluation is
characterized by the performance of certain tasks:
1. the identification of software products,
2. the acquisition of information such as literature reviews,
3. discussions with product developers / vendors as well as the faculty and
staff of other schools who use different software products,
4. the general screening of available software, and
5. the analysis of institutional needs.
During this stage of evaluation, committee members should partake in system
demonstrations and detailed discussions with developers/distributers. Wright
(1990) advised that as the evaluators think about how the system will meet their
particular needs, the resulting analysis should be a reflection of the
* Current needs and requirements (i.e. the manner in which things are
* How things should operate in the future
* Potential uses of the system that committee members previously did not know
Throughout this process, analysis will shift from general system
considerations to the module specific criteria. The knowledge and expertise of
individual committee members will be invaluable as the analysis begins to narrow
Once this stage is complete, the committee members should be able to
recommend a system that will meet most if not all of their school's current and
anticipated needs. The decision should be based on sufficient data and
information as well as a thorough analysis of available software products.
However, if a final decision is not imminent at this point, the committee
members might consider developing and using a quantitative measure on which they
can base their decision. This process includes assigning weighted scores to both
the general systems and module specific criteria as well as calculating the
performance of each system based on a ration of how well a system performed
compared to how well it could have performed. While this approach is certainly
more objective than using a"checklist" procedure, it is probably too time
consuming for the members of evaluation committees who are involved in this
process in addition to teaching and administrative responsibilities. As Wright
(1990) indicates, this process is more suited for districts or consortia of
private independent schools that have time and resources.
Bers, T. H.. (1992). Of student tracking
systems. Community, Technical and Junior College Journal. 62(4), 21-23.
Bozeman, W. C. and Spuck, D. W. (1994). "Computer support for administrative
leadership of schools." In Greg Kearsley & William Lynch (Eds.) Educational
Technology: Leadership Perspectives. (pp. 39-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Connors, E. T. and Valesky, T. C. (1986). Using Microcomputers in School
Administration. Fastback no. 248. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Veccholi, L. (1998). Evaluating Student Records Management Software. College
Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Wilson, B. and D. Armstrong (1993). A Computerized System for School Report
and Record Writing. Computers and Education: An International Journal, 21(4),
Wright, P. (1990). Choosing a computer based instructional support system: An
evaluation / selection model" Computers and Education, 14(3), 217-225.