SEO Ed Digest
|
Vol. 3, Issue 12
December 2006
Bringing urban P-16 education resources to policymakers, parents, advocates, and district and school staff in the District of Columbia
Research on DC Schools
National Lessons Learned
New Ideas
The State Education Office does not endorse the views expressed in the resources and reports contained in the SEO Ed Digest.
|
|
This issue of the SEO Ed Digest covers recent and background research on the importance of data and creating a longitudinal data system. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are measured on student progress. Schools and teachers are being held accountable through adequate yearly progress and school report cards. In order to respond to these federal requirements, data collection is now more important than ever. This issue includes information on the elements needed to create a longitudinal data system, how states are doing in creating this system, why data collection is important and what it can be used for, how to create a longitudinal system without violating student privacy protection laws, and the importance of state governance and how a longitudinal data system would create common ground from pre-K to postsecondary levels of education. This topic is especially relevant to the District of Columbia because the city is currently building a longitudinal data system.
Interactive Resources
Reports
Interactive Resources
IES Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program
http://165.224.221.98/Programs/SLDS/stateinfo.asp
Fourteen states were awarded Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grants in November 2005. A downloadable abstract of the three-year work each State is planning to complete is provided below along with the State’s original application to the grant program, as it was redacted and published by the U.S. Department of Education’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office.
Results of 2006 NCEA Survey of State Data Collection Issues Related to Longitudinal Analysis (November 2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey_results/index.cfm
In preparation of the launch of the Data Quality Campaign, the National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA) conducted a survey, with the support of The Broad Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, about state data systems to determine the number of states that have built the infrastructure to tap into the power of longitudinal data. This website provides an overview of the findings of the August 2006 survey in addition to a state-by-state analysis of the policy implications of each state's data system.
Reports
Claiming Common Ground (March 2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Tools-Claiming_Common_Ground.pdf
There is a widespread agreement among policymakers, the business community, and educational leaders that the United States needs to raise the educational achievement of its young population. Many states have sought to meet this challenge by developing policies to advance and support student achievement in K-12 schools including standards-based reforms, state assessments, and high school redesigns. Some states have also sought to expand access to postsecondary education in order to increase the numbers of students completing education or training beyond high school. Yet these various reforms have not improved the college readiness of high school graduates, as measured by the percentage of college students who take remedial education, or by college completion rates. This report offers another approach and recommends four state policy dimensions for improving college readiness opportunities for all high school students. These are: alignment of coursework and assessments; developing financial incentives to support collaboration between K-12 and postsecondary education; statewide data systems; and accountability. Through these policy levers, states can create conditions for claiming common ground between K-12 and postsecondary education.
Creating a Longitudinal Data System: Using Data to Improve Student Achievement Update 2006 (2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Publications-Creating_Longitudinal_Data_System.pdf
Educators and policymakers are beginning to recognize the value of better information as an essential tool for improving schools. They understand that when states collect the most relevant data and are able to match individual student records over time, they can answer the questions that are at the core of educational effectiveness. This paper explains the ten essential elements and policy benefits of state longitudinal data. It also provides an update of the data quality campaign after its first year. The ten essential elements of a state longitudinal data system are: a unique statewide student identifier; student-level enrollment, demographic and program participation information; the ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth; information on untested students; a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students; student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; student-level college readiness test scores; student-level graduation and dropout data; the ability to match student records between the pre-K-12 and postsecondary systems; and a state data audit system assessing data quality, validity and reliability.
Data Use Drives School and District Improvement (September 2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf
Although data can be used by school systems in myriad ways to promote system-wide success, this brief focuses specifically on how stakeholders at all levels can support access to and use of a student’s academic history to adjust instruction to meet the student’s needs. The brief also discusses: how to coordinate different types of data to improve performance; how teachers, schools, districts, and states can use longitudinal data; case studies of longitudinal data systems in action; and other schools, districts, and states to watch.
From Goals to Results: Improving Education System Accountability (June 2006)
http://www.sreb.org/main/Goals/Publications/06E12-System_Accountability.pdf
This report addresses how state education agencies work together to: create programs that smooth the critical transitions between grade levels for all students by aligning course content and assessments from grade to grade; improve data systems to follow individual students from preschool through postsecondary education and to track important information about teachers; and; coordinate education resources to ensure real-dollar growth per K-12 and college student — with a focus on results.
From Vision to Action: How School Districts Use Data to Improve Performance (April 2004)
http://www.3d2know.org/publications.html
Published in 2003, “Vision to Know and Do: The Power of Data as a Tool in Educational Decision Making” defined a vision for continuous improvement, identified leadership districts creating a climate for change, and reviewed the implementation of systems and processes to enable data-driven decision making (DDDM). This new report moves beyond the vision and visits districts that are acting on their data, testing the process, and seeing improvement in student learning. The paper draws from interviews with more than 30 experts in the field, including teachers, principals, district administrators, entrepreneurs, consultants, researchers, and other professionals. Additional interviews were conducted with multiple stakeholders from three school districts to better understand how data-driven decision making is used throughout the organization. Profiles at the end of the paper of Lemon Grove School District (CA), Fulton County Schools (GA), and Cleveland Municipal School District (OH) show how different school districts use data throughout their organizations.
Growth Models: An Examination within the Context of NCLB (August 2006)
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/{DEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5}/Growth%20Models%20and%20NCLB%20Report.pdf
This paper examines how a longitudinal growth model – one that tracks the achievement of individual students, rather than cohorts of students – would impact No Child Left Behind. Included is a discussion of the necessary data components as well as an examination of the benefits and disadvantages of incorporating and utilizing this type of model. Lastly, the paper includes a brief discussion of two growth model pilot programs recently approved by the U.S. Department of Education in Tennessee and North Carolina.
Judging Student Achievement: Why Getting the Right Data Matters (September 2005)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Tools-Judging_Student_Achievement.pdf
Good data make it possible to arrive at fair, accurate judgments about student and school performance and to make better decisions about how to deploy resources to improve schools. The policy brief describes the elements of a comprehensive state student data system that can provide richer and more meaningful information of use to policymakers, educators, parents, and the public.
Maximizing the Power of Education Data while Ensuring Compliance with Federal Student Privacy Laws A Guide for State Policymakers (August 2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Publications-FERPA_A_Guide_for_State_Policymakers.PDF
In response to state requests for information on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the managing partners of the Data Quality Campaign worked with the law firm of Holland & Knight to analyze FERPA and how the new roles of state education agencies (and their longitudinal data systems) in data collection and sharing can be aligned with FERPA. This issue analysis may serve as a guide to assist states as they build and use state longitudinal data systems in ways that comply with FERPA and fully protect the privacy rights of students and their parents. The Data Quality Campaign values student privacy and strongly supports the use of longitudinal data as an indispensable tool in the effort to improve school performance; this legal analysis concludes that instituting and using these state longitudinal data systems can be done in accordance with FERPA protection of student privacy.
Measuring What Matters: Creating a Longitudinal Data System to Improve Student Achievement Update 2006 (2006)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Publications-Measuring_What_Matters.pdf
In September 2006, The National Center for Educational Accountability, with the support from the Broad Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, updated its annual survey about state data systems to report on how many states have put in place the 10 essential elements of longitudinal data system. The results include the following: over the past year, progress has been made on all indicators, but no state has all 10 elements. Only nine states have at least eight elements of a longitudinal system. The number of states with three or fewer elements has dropped from 12 last year to six this year. Progress is being made but there is work to be done across the states.
The Progress of P-16 Collaboration in the States (April 2006)
http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/68/71/6871.pdf
This policy brief seeks to track the progress of P-16 collaboration in the states by focusing on states with established and successful P-16 programs, as well as states that are in the process of establishing P-16 councils. The paper does not seek to identify one approach as better than another, but simply to discuss results – are more students in the state moving through the pipeline, preschool through four years of college, and are more of these students achieving at higher levels than before? While 30 states are engaged in P-16 activity, some have had more progress than others in aligning standards and assessments, smoothing transitions and raising student achievement. This report looks at the following states: Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado, and Virginia.
State Education Data Systems That Increase Learning and Improve Accountability (June 2004)
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Tools-State_Education_Data_Systems_That_Increase_Learning_and_Improve_Accountability.pdf
Driven by growing accountability pressures, states and districts have invested in a variety of computerized systems for data storage, analysis, and reporting. As accountability policies demand access to more transparent and accurate data about every aspect of the education process, developing linkages among historically disparate systems is becoming more critical. This policy issue reviews the current condition of state data systems by looking critically at the past, present, and future of education data use to help build an understanding of an ideal data system. This paper examines the components needed to address system improvements and provides policy recommendations to help states create efficient and useful data systems that commit to advancing accountability systems to improve student learning.
State Longitudinal Data Systems and Student Privacy Protections Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (October 2006)
http://www.hklaw.com/content//Whitepapers/FERPA_and_Longitudinal_Data_Systems.pdf
Many states and national associations are moving to install or support statewide longitudinal data systems to permit more effective measurement of educational effectiveness and delivery of educational services to students. Educators and policymakers have come to understand that when states collect the most relevant data and are able to match individual student records over time, they can answer the questions that are at the core of educational effectiveness. Access to these data gives teachers the information they need to tailor instruction to help each student improve, gives administrators resources and information to effectively and efficiently manage, and enables policymakers to evaluate which policy initiatives show the best evidence of increasing student achievement. The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences made grants to fourteen states during the past year to develop and implement state longitudinal data systems. However, concerns have been raised about whether the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prevents or significantly hampers effective us of these systems to accomplish their objectives. This paper addresses how a state longitudinal data system can align these principals and comply with FERPA, with regard to student data at all levels of education, pre-kindergarten through postsecondary education.
Back to OSSE Ed Digest Main