ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Postsecondary Data Connections: A Primer
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2011-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Data Collection,Barriers,Information Policy,Information Networks,Knowledge Management,Management Information Systems

There is an increasing focus at the state and federal levels on linking data across the P-20/Workforce spectrum to help inform policies and practices. This primer is intended to provide policymakers with: (1) An overview of the status of states vis-a-vis the linking of postsecondary data to K-12 and workforce data; (2) A subset of questions policymakers can begin to address through the linking of appropriate K-12, postsecondary, and workforce data elements; (3) Examples of the barriers that limit states ability to link education data across the P20/Workforce spectrum; and (4) Suggested next steps.
Leveraging State Longitudinal Data Systems to Inform Teacher Preparation and Continuous Improvement: A Data-Sharing Template to Prompt Discussion and Strategic Planning
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Stakeholders,Strategic Planning,Elementary Secondary Education,Preservice Teacher Education,Longitudinal Studies,Knowledge Management,Educational Practices,Best Practices,Educational Policy,State Policy,Partnerships in Education,Data Analysis,Data Collection,Data Interpretation,Change Strategies,Organizational Change,Postsecondary Education

States are looking to leverage their longitudinal data systems, particularly the teacher/student data link, to inform the policies and practices that support educator success. It is essential that states bring critical stakeholders together in partnership to determine what teacher data the state should be collecting and matching to student data and how the information will be used. This work will require cross-sector and agency collaboration to be successful. To inform the growing partnerships between state policymakers, K-12 and postsecondary leaders, and teacher preparation programs, the DQC, AACTE, CCSSO, and NCATE created a template to guide discussions between states and teacher preparation programs around how data can be collected, analyzed, shared and used to improve the preparation of teachers and the ultimate increase in student achievement. Possible outcomes of these conversations include identifying critical policy questions and increasing transparency and effective communication about teacher preparation/continuous improvement. Each state will approach this work differently--some will use this template in its entirety, some will draw on pieces of it and some may create their own from scratch. It is also foreseeable that states will have a different process and agreement in place for each individual teacher preparation program within the state. The template is meant to "spur and guide" a conversation so that stakeholders can come to the table with something in hand to react to and modify based on their needs as well as set expectations based on defined roles.
DQC Comments on the Posted Recommendations Regarding Data Security and Privacy Protections
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Information Security,Stakeholders,Technical Assistance,Feedback (Response),Web Sites,Electronic Publishing,Expertise,Data Collection,Privacy,Policy Formation,Longitudinal Studies,Compliance (Legal),School Districts,Public Agencies,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Federal Regulation,Data,Educational Policy,Policy Analysis,State Policy,Student Records,Agency Role,Government Role,Federal State Relationship

The U.S. Department of Education is conducting several activities to address privacy and security issues related to education data. Earlier this year a contractor for the Department convened a group of privacy and security experts and produced a report with recommendations to the Department on ways they can address emerging challenges in protecting student data in education data systems. The Department released those recommendations on its website and is accepting feedback on them via its blog through August 13, 2010. See: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/06/data-security-and-privacy-protections/. The Department has indicated that these recommendations, and the feedback submitted on the blog, will serve as the basis for coordinated guidance and communication that will come out of the Department's new Privacy Technical Assistance Center. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) commends the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) for its efforts to highlight the need to ensure the security, privacy and confidentiality of sensitive education data and to provide more systematic assistance to states and local agencies in meeting these challenges. As a result of the their initial analysis and interpretation of these recommendations, as well as conversations with privacy and security experts and state stakeholders, they offer four overarching reactions, as well as a handful of specific questions. They hope these comments are the beginning of ongoing and transparent conversation between the Department and the field on these issues. (Contains 3 footnotes.)
Creating Reports Using Longitudinal Data: How States Can Present Information to Support Student Learning and School System Improvement
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Feedback (Response),High School Graduates,Graduation Rate,At Risk Students,Prediction,Cohort Analysis,Correlation,Data Analysis,Privacy,Information Security,Longitudinal Studies,Data,Decision Making,State Policy,Educational Policy,College Readiness,Grades (Scholastic),Postsecondary Education,High School Students,Academic Standards,Alignment (Education),Secondary School Curriculum,Program Implementation,Information Systems,Articulation (Education),Career Readiness,National Surveys,Databases,Educational Testing,Student Characteristics,Teacher Student Relationship,Student Records,Dropouts,Reports,State Agencies,Educational Diagnosis,Educational Improvement

Now that all 50 states and the District of Columbia are building statewide longitudinal data systems, the next step is to ensure that the information in these systems is used to improve student learning. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has identified 10 actions that states can take to ensure that the right data are available and accessible and that users have the knowledge and skills to use the data well (see &quot;10 State Actions To Ensure Effective Data Use,&quot; page 2). This paper discusses reports that states can create using longitudinal data. These reports include, but are not limited to: (1) Growth reports looking at changes in the achievement of the same students over time; (2) Diagnostic reports providing academic histories of students' mastery of specific concepts or skills; (3) Early warning reports identifying students who need immediate help based on at-risk indicators; (4) Predictive reports showing the relationship between earlier and later student outcomes--for example, the relationship between 8th grade test scores and students' readiness for college and careers in 12th grade; (5) Cohort graduation reports showing graduation rates of groups of the same students followed since the beginning of 9th grade; and (6) Feedback reports providing information on outcomes for students after they graduate from a school or district. (Contains 3 tables, 10 figures, 16 resources and 20 endnotes.)
Race to the Top District Competition: The Data Quality Campaign's Comments on ED's Proposed Criteria
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2012-06-07
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Stakeholders,Competition,Educational Change,Best Practices,Politics of Education,School Districts,Public Agencies,Information Security,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Grants,Federal Aid,Selection Criteria,Federal Regulation,Feedback (Response),Data,Decision Making,Educational Policy,Policy Analysis,Program Implementation,Alignment (Education),State Policy,Evaluation Methods,Educational Assessment,Measurement,Postsecondary Education,Evaluation Criteria,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Academic Achievement

The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) submits these comments in response to the US Department of Education's (ED) draft requirements, priorities, selection criteria, and definitions for the Race to the Top District (RTT-D) competition. DQC applauds ED for including the following components of the proposal: (1) Data is acknowledged throughout the proposal as a critical tool for students, parents, and educators to use to inform student-centric teaching and learning; (2) Data is a means to an end, and too often federal policies ignore the data implications or demands of specific strategies. The proposed criteria appear to acknowledge the data implications of its requirements by requiring districts to put in place certain data systems capacities; (3) Data cannot be leveraged to inform decisionmaking if stakeholders lack access to timely, actionable information and the training to use it effectively. The proposed language calls for providing leadership teams, educator teams, parents, and students with data, acknowledging that all of these stakeholders need training and support to ensure they have the data literacy skills to understand and use available tools and resources; (4) Local education agencies (LEAs) and schools need support implementing best practices to comply with federal and state privacy and security policies and protect student information. The RTT-D language acknowledges that critical need by requiring applicants to work with ED to put in place deliberate implementation plans that address those issues; and (5) Culture change is the most difficult part of any continuous improvement process. The RTT-D language acknowledges that putting in place tools is not the same thing as creating a culture that embraces the effective and appropriate use of data to inform decisionmaking. As such, it asks applicants to indicate how the implementation plan will translate into meaningful reform and support districtwide change. It will be difficult for grantees to demonstrate and the federal government to monitor these kinds of outcomes. (Contains 1 footnote.)
States Now Collect Quality Data but Need to Act to Improve Student Achievement. Data for Action 2010: DQC's State Analysis. National Summary
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Outcomes of Education,Longitudinal Studies,Progress Monitoring,Data Collection,Evidence,Management Information Systems,State Action,State Policy,Information Networks,Systems Development,Information Management,Change Strategies,Educational Change,Organizational Change,Evaluation Utilization,Information Utilization,Research Utilization

As state policymakers strive to ensure that every student is taught by an effective teacher and is ready for college and 21st-century careers, they must also make drastic budget cuts. States cannot do more with less without collecting and using quality data to determine which programs and policies increase student achievement and the state's return on investment. The Data Quality Campaign's (DQC) sixth annual state analysis, "Data for Action 2010," reveals that states have made unprecedented progress collecting longitudinal information that enables them to follow individual students over time. However, states have not taken the necessary actions to create a culture of effective data use. To leverage current investments and support data use, states must act to ensure that they link appropriate data across educational systems (from early childhood through postsecondary and the workforce), that these data are accessible to stakeholders and that those stakeholders have the capacity to use data to improve student achievement.
Education and Workforce Data Connections: A Primer
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Policy,Elementary Secondary Education,Longitudinal Studies,Progress Monitoring,Education Work Relationship,Alignment (Education),Barriers,Postsecondary Education,State Action,State Policy,Information Management,Management Information Systems,Data Collection,Data Interpretation,Educational Change,Systems Development

Data are most useful when they are transformed into actionable information that people are able to access, understand and use. Thanks to both state and federal leadership, political commitment and investment of financial resources, states have made tremendous progress in the building of statewide K-12 longitudinal data systems. However, to ensure that state policymakers are able to better serve individuals living and working in their states, states must be able to follow individuals from early childhood through their K-12 education and into postsecondary and/or their careers as the majority of students do not follow the traditional education/workforce pathway. Most students transfer among and between two- and four-year institutions and/or the workforce. This policy brief provides an overview from the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) 2010 state analysis of education/workforce connections.
DQC 2009-10 Annual Survey Results
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Feedback (Response),Tests,Longitudinal Studies,Data,State Policy,Educational Policy,College Readiness,Grades (Scholastic),Courses,Postsecondary Education,High School Students,Academic Standards,Alignment (Education),Secondary School Curriculum,Program Implementation,Information Systems,Articulation (Education),Career Readiness,National Surveys,Databases,Data Collection,Enrollment,Educational Testing,Student Characteristics,Teacher Student Relationship,Student Records,Graduation Rate,High School Graduates,Dropouts,Audits (Verification),Quality Assurance

States have made tremendous progress in developing longitudinal data systems that can track student progress and answer critical policy questions. However, more work is needed, particularly on certain elements. Data on course-taking and grades (element 6), college readiness test scores (element 7), and other feedback from post-secondary institutions (element 9) can help determine whether high school courses and graduation standards are aligned with college and workplace expectations. However, states have made the least progress on implementing these three elements since 2005. This compendium provides a national overview on state progress towards implementing each of the 10 Elements and answering critical policy questions.
Putting It All Together: Supporting Continuous Improvement in Education through Strategic Use of Data Systems
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2010-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Information Technology,Information Needs,Stakeholders,Data Collection,Management Information Systems,Educational Improvement,Improvement Programs,State Action,Strategic Planning,Evaluation Utilization,Information Utilization,Research Utilization,Longitudinal Studies,Information Networks,Systems Development,Information Management,Best Practices,Educational Practices,Information Security,Privacy,Information Policy,State Policy,Progress Monitoring

State education data systems have often been described as data rich but information poor. Historically, these systems were created for compliance purposes and, therefore, designed and managed as information technology projects, but a culture change is under way. Educators and other stakeholders are beginning to value data as a tool to inform continuous improvement of student outcomes and system performance. As states work to meet the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirement to follow individuals through P-20 education and into the workforce by 2011, the reality is that these state systems cannot and should not collect the total universe of data on student, school and district performance. Collecting this vast amount of data would cost too much in terms of time, money, privacy and security. Rather, state longitudinal data systems should be created, managed and used strategically to meet the most critical information needs of key stakeholders. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has identified 10 Essential Elements of a longitudinal data system and 10 State Actions to ensure effective use of these data. As states make progress toward implementing these Elements and Actions, they must engage in the following processes to foster a culture of data-driven decisionmaking and ensure that the Elements and Actions are integrated purposefully and not simply as a series of 20 checkmarks: (1) Prioritize, through broad-based stakeholder input, the critical policy questions to drive the development and use of longitudinal data systems; (2) Ensure data systems are interoperable within and across agencies and sectors by adopting common data standards, definitions and language; and (3) Protect personally identifiable information through governance policies and practices that promote the privacy and security of the information while allowing appropriate data access and sharing.
Using Data to Improve Teacher Effectiveness: A Primer for State Policymakers
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2012-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Competencies,State Policy,Data Collection,Knowledge Management,Information Networks,Management Information Systems,Best Practices,Educational Practices,Access to Information,Information Skills,Teacher Education Programs,Educational Improvement,Improvement Programs,Teacher Improvement,Evaluation Utilization,Information Utilization,Research Utilization

Policymakers across the nation are leading efforts to ensure that every classroom has an effective teacher. Faced with the need to dramatically improve student outcomes, states have embraced a policy agenda that promotes and supports teacher quality in many ways, including developing evaluation and compensation policies, targeting professional development, determining the characteristics of effective teachers through research, and identifying effective teacher preparation programs. It is incumbent upon state policymakers to invest time and resources into not only developing a shared vision for addressing teacher quality but also understanding the implications for state data systems to ensure the successful implementation of these policies. Without this proactive, deliberate approach, policymakers will find their plans constrained or undermined by data systems that do not meet policy needs. State policymakers must prioritize these five actions to ensure that their state has the necessary data capacity and processes to inform and support state teacher effectiveness policies: (1) Collect and link key data on students and teachers at the state level; (2) Implement the policies and practices necessary to support a high-quality teacher-student data link; (3) Provide educators with timely access to data; (4) Ensure that educators receive training on data use to improve student achievement; and (5) Implement state policies to ensure that teacher preparation programs use data to improve their programs and train teacher candidates to use data. A checklist and a list of resources are included.
Leveraging the Power of State Longitudinal Data Systems: Building Capacity to Turn Data into Useful Information
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2011-05-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Stakeholders,Educational Change,Information Utilization,Information Management,Information Networks,Longitudinal Studies,Systems Development,Management Information Systems,Educational Improvement,Improvement Programs,Capacity Building,Data Analysis,Data Collection,Data Interpretation,Progress Monitoring,State Policy

Faced with the need to create a competitive workforce and improve the quality of our education system, states are pursuing policy agendas to better prepare students for postsecondary education and careers. To inform these agendas, statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDSs) have become an invaluable asset and serve as a tool to help states answer pressing policy questions and improve practice. In the long term, these robust data systems can enable state education agencies to create tools such as early warning systems and data dashboards, which equip educators with information to address issues including dropouts, teacher quality and college readiness. All stakeholders will benefit in a variety of ways. However, fully harnessing the power of these robust SLDSs to answer key policy questions and provide information critical to various stakeholders depends upon state education agencies' being able to: (1) Collect the data in a way that provides valid answers to a state's critical policy questions, even as these questions change over time; (2) Define accurate measures of progress; (3) Conduct appropriate analyses of the data; (4) Present and disseminate findings to stakeholders; and (5) Use the information to drive policy and practice decisions. While IT staff and resources will always be required to maintain and update the SLDSs, the power of these systems will not be evident until education analysts and researchers also engage in the full scope of system design, maintenance and use over time. [This paper was written with Ellen B. Mandinach and Nancy J. Smith.]
Do Federally Assisted Households Have Access to High Performing Public Schools? Civil Rights Research
Author: Ellen, Ingrid Gould
Date: 2012-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Civil Rights,Neighborhoods,Metropolitan Areas,Low Income Groups,Public Housing,Tax Credits,Federal Aid,Access to Education,Educational Quality,Social Services,Elementary Schools,Public Schools,Equal Education,Comparative Analysis,At Risk Persons,Whites,African Americans,Hispanic Americans,Racial Differences,Place of Residence,Achievement Tests

A family's housing unit provides more than simply shelter. It also provides a set of neighborhood amenities and a package of local public services, including, most critically, a local school. Yet housing and education policymakers rarely coordinate their efforts, and there has been little examination of the schools that voucher holders or other assisted households actually reach. In this project the authors describe the elementary schools nearest to households receiving four different forms of housing assistance in the country as a whole, in each of the 50 states, and in the 100 largest metropolitan areas. They compare the characteristics of these schools to those accessible to other comparable households. The authors pay particular attention to whether voucher holders are able to reach neighborhoods with higher performing schools than other low-income households in the same geographic area. In brief, they find that assisted households as a whole are more likely to live near low-performing schools than other households. Surprisingly, Housing Choice Voucher holders do not generally live near higher performing schools than households receiving other forms of housing assistance, even though the voucher program was created, in part, to help low-income households reach a broader range of neighborhoods and schools. While voucher holders typically live near schools that are higher performing than those nearest to public housing tenants, they also typically live near schools that are slightly lower performing than those nearest to households living in Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Project-based Section 8 developments and lower performing than those nearest to other poor households. (Contains 7 figures, 7 tables, and 9 footnotes.) [The following appendices are available on the publisher's website: (1) State-by-state tables; (2) Metropolitan area tables; (3) National distributions of family units by school performance; and (4) Top 100 MSAs--percentile rankings for each housing program.]