Ultimatum to IBM on data system

State cites breach of contract over CALPADS

In an escalation of tensions, the state Department of Education has notified the vendor of CALPADS, the troubled statewide student data system, that it faces a termination of the contract for “substandard” work and a failure to meet deadlines. The Department is giving IBM 15 days to present a plan detailing how it will fix existing problems, avoid future contract violations, and quickly complete the project.

Richard Zeiger, the new Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote the bluntly worded letter to an IBM vice president on Feb. 11. He concluded by saying, “CDE reserves all its rights, including, without limitation, the right to reject the corrective action plan at its sole discretion and terminate for default.”

The letter signals that  state Superintendent Tom Torlakson plans to aggressively press IBM to deliver a project that is more than a year late. IBM has been paid half of its $13.9 million contract, Keric Ashley, the director of the department’s Data Management Division, said last month.

Using a unique identifier, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System is designed to track every K-12 student through the system, providing data on attendance and courses, and offering researchers insights into teacher training and into programs that work and don’t work in schools. The state is committed to providing the federal government with accurate four-year graduation and dropout rates later this summer – or risk being forced to reimburse the federal government for stimulus money.

But CALPADS has been in turmoil since October, when Gov. Schwarzenegger, frustrated by missed deadlines, vetoed $7 million from the Department’s oversight budget for the project. The project has limped along ever since, but Gov. Jerry Brown, resisting calls to ask the Legislature to restore the money, has called an interagency group to take stock of the project and its overall aims. Brown’s ambivalence toward CALPADS has alarmed CALPADS proponents, who say that California has already fallen behind other states in the use of student data.

The latest skirmish is over Fall 2, the second of four data batches that IBM is to deliver. Zeiger wrote that IBM failed to comply with two demands. An operating manual is now two years late, and IBM  failed to meet the eight-hour window for overnight processing of data – which is  important to districts uploading the information.

Zeiger then offered a general critique. “The overall quality of the services and deliverables provided by IBM under the Contract are substandard and fail to meet the Contract requirements.” He said that logs, district comments, reports, and regular correspondence back up that assessment.

Building up the case for termination, he wrote, “IBM’s continuous failure to meet the Contract Schedule, IBM’s quality failures and IBM’s various failures to satisfy the contract specifications each constitute material breach of the Contract entitling CDE to terminate the Contract, acquire similar services and deliverables and to charge IBM for any excess costs.”

Neither Ashley nor Zeiger would comment on the letter, pending a response from IBM to the 15-day deadline. Update: IBM issued the following statement: “IBM is reviewing the specifics of the February 3rd letter from the California Department of Education and will continue to work in partnership with CDE to meet the ambitious scope of this project. CalPADS currently is operational and California school districts are successfully using it to submit information that is vital to tracking the progress of the State’s students. The project is in its final phase and we are on track to deliver remaining system functionality by the end of this school year.”


  1. I wish Gov. Brown would be “ambivalent” about another waste of money: the $1.6 billion of state money we’re about to pour down the drain for new federal standards.  Maine, Texas and WA are having lively discussions about this gravy train, but debate in California seems totally squelched, even on John’s otherwise admirable Thoughts on Public Education.   What gives?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. Stay tuned, Doug. I will revisit the common-core issue and costs soon. In a word, you are shorting the value of joining a national consortium to replace state assessments that many, myself included, believe need to be changed.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  3. John, thanks, I look forward to that discussion.  It should take into account that not all states need new standards or assessments.  CA, for instance, does not- thus the question of cost is relevant.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  4. I admit I am for the Federal Standards for math.  California already covers about 90% of the Federal Standards in math.  Most of the missing 10% used to be in the California Standard but were probably dropped because to many teachers ran out of time to teach them.  Nevertheless, not teaching these missing concepts put California Students at a disadvantage on their college entrance exam.  One of the more important concepts that is now missing from the California Standard is fractional exponentiation.  I believe that exponentiation is the fifth most important math function.  It is used in physics, chemistry, engineering, banking, music, and many other areas.
    I would think that it would eventually costs less to purchase ‘Standard Textbooks’ and ‘Standard Tests’ rather then a different set just for California.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  5. The IBM programmers have developed a process that will work but the technical requirements to submit data are beyond the in-house resources of most. The emerging  Charter schools market is also required to file but not required to show how they will comply with the mandates.  This process can and must be done but some tools are needed between the CALPADS submission level and the local SIS level to make it work.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  6. Rick Hess also raises questions about the costs and implications of common core standards here.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  7. “The IBM programmers have developed a process that will work but the technical requirements to submit data are beyond the in-house resources of most.” 

    Even if this is true, is it really a solution if the resources are not available at LEAs?  As someone who has developed software applications I would say NO!  If it does not meet the needs of everyone involved in the process, then the application has missed the mark of a usable product.  This is part of the process of being a programmer, understanding the needs and resources of ALL parties involved, and developing the application to meet them.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity


  1. Tweets that mention Ultimatum to IBM on data system | Thoughts on Public Education -- Topsy.com
  2. Conditions of Education in California | Conditions of Education in California

"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.

2010 elections(16)
2012 election(16)
A to G Curriculum(27)
Achievement Gap(38)
Adequacy suit(19)
Adult education(1)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Blog info(5)
Career academies(20)
Character education(2)
Common Core standards(71)
Community Colleges(66)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(11)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2015 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us