Transcript Center for Educational Performance and Information

Center for Educational
Performance and
Information
The Tortured Path of Data
Through Policy and Politics
January 22, 2007
Margaret Merlyn Ropp, Ph.D.
Director
The birth of a data set…it’s more
painful than you think
The birth of a data set…it’s more
painful than you think

In MI, a compliance reporting need starts
the process



Required (penalties) vs. “nice-to-have for
research”
Headlee Amendment - requires the state to
reimburse local governmental units for any new
state-mandated programs (potentially even
data collections)
Grant programs allow the collection of much
more data because there is an expectation of
using data to monitor and audit in exchange for
the accepting grant $$.
The birth of a data set…it’s more
painful than you think





Step 1) CEPI facilitates a “data governance” process with
state agency data managers to identify and define definitions
of mandated data elements and the manner in which they
should be collected from districts.
Step 2) CEPI publishes the data definitions six months in
advance of a new collection to allow software vendors to
make changes to district systems.
Step 3) Districts enter data into their systems of record and
then submit data to CEPI at specified times of the year
Step 4) CEPI receives, cleanses, structures and stores the
data
Step 5) Analysts use analysis and reporting software to
make federal compliance reports (now through Education
Data Exchange Network (EDEN) as well as public reports and
data sets.
On the surface, educational
data are neutral…
but the needs are not.

Politics


The reauthorization of ESEA (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001) formalized federal
accountability in what used to be state-only turf
in local education.
Policy

Each state responded with policies to meet the
federal requirements and defined the data
elements needed to do so.
Graduation rate calculations: A
case study of the tortured path

Politics: NCLB, Title I Regulations. 200.19
Graduation Rate: The graduation rate for
public high schools, which means--(A) The
percentage of students, measured from the
beginning of high school, who graduate
from high school with a regular diploma
(not including an alternative degree that is
not fully aligned with the State's academic
standards, such as a certificate or a GED)
in the standard number of years;
Graduation rate calculations: A
case study of the tortured path

Politics: National Governor’s Association
“Graduation Counts Compact”




standard, four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate
Divide the number of on-time graduates in a
given year by the number of first-time entering
ninth graders four years earlier.
Only regular diplomas count - no GEDs or
certificates
Response to nation-wide concern over the
variety of states’ definitions and calculation
methodologies – hot news for education
publishers and media for three years.
Technical impact - Tracking
individual students over time

Challenges include:




Implementing and maintaining a stable student
identifier - CEPI’s Unique Identification Code
(UIC)
Connecting multiple years of data (e.g., 1.7
million students reported 3 times a year = 16
total cycles needed - technically very difficult
and expensive
Using a system designed to capture student
FTE pre-2001, not student mobility
Districts are responsible for data entry. Data
quality is a shared responsibility between LEAs
and the state.
Political impact – No child
transferred out

In Michigan, big changes include




Tracking individual students over time
instead of an “estimated four-year graduation
rate”
All public school students should be included in
the calculation population - no more transfer
outs for “completers”
Confirming transfers
And…students must graduate in four years
in order to “count” for accountability
What do we do with the bad news
of the transition to a true cohort?



Understand that the new rates will be more
accurate and give us a solid baseline of data
Provide reporting tools to present data so that
districts can take action
CEPI reports (beginning fall 2006) are the first
proactive uses of state compliance data by


The state identifying students who may be at risk of not
graduating “on time” and districts finding interventions to
get them there
tracking students in their original cohort, regardless of
how many times they move over four years.
Cool things about working at CEPI
(Meg’s view)



CEPI data sets represent the entire
“population” under study
An opportunity to put data visualization
through the reality test – can we use
predictive data mining to impact the future
in a positive direction instead of merely
reporting what happened?
All our efforts should focus on improving
student learning and achievement
Questions?