• Introduction
• Where Do the Data Come From?
• The Infamous "Data Burden"
• Using the CCD
• Dissemination of the Data
• Conclusion

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is an organized set of information used throughout the United States to examine school, student, and teacher data. The CCD is also used to predict trends to assist policymakers. These uses of the CCD are almost certainly known to most readers of the Education Statistics Quarterly . Throughout the federal and state departments of education, the CCD is recognized as an important tool for educators and community stakeholders.

However, when representatives of school districts are asked about the CCD, the answers are less certain. Many have not even heard of the CCD. Does this mean that the data are not used by personnel at the district level? Not necessarily. CCD data are used; personnel just may not know the source of the information.

Even if school and district personnel have not heard of the CCD, they do know that they are required to collect information and send it on up "to the next level" of the education hierarchy. It seems as though, contrary to the law of gravity, the data flow up . On the other hand, people who are using the CCD may not be aware of the processes involved in getting the data to the state departments of education before they go to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the creation of the CCD.

One of the major purposes of this article is to discuss some of the processes involved in the data flow from America's schools through America's school districts and to examine what is involved in making the data as accurate as possible. Another purpose is to discuss how these data, now in the form of information, can flow back down to districts and schools and how that flow can be increased.

The procedures leading up to the moment that a school district sends the data to the state or county agency are complex. A supportive internal infrastructure is required. This may seem simplistic, but each piece of data is gathered, or collected, in one way or another, and reviewed by staff to make certain that it is correct. Sometimes the data are collected through a sophisticated wide-area computer network connecting schools to a central office. Sometimes the collection takes place using diskettes. Sometimes there is a paper collection. In all cases, however, the data that are collected have to be validated and checked for accuracy.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, more than 700,000 students will be reported on the date of the district "snapshot" in the fall of 2000. Information about each student and about teachers and schools has to be reported accurately. It is true that LA Unified is unusual in that it is the second largest district in the country. However, every district in the United States is responsible for collecting accurate information for each of the students, teachers, and schools within its jurisdiction. Every district has to go through the process of data collection and validation.

This reporting process is not without difficulties. The goal is to report accurate data. But what happens when a data element is missing or makes no sense? When an error is discovered, it must be corrected. If the error results from data entered at a school, that school will be contacted. The school could be contacted by telephone, or might receive a report indicating what needs to be done to fix the problem (or, usually, more than one problem). In any case, the information must be corrected.

For those in the business of collecting data, this doesn't sound like a big issue. It seems clear: the school has made an error and must correct it. But the business of schools is not data collection or data entry. The business of schools is educating our students. Anything that detracts from this central task is not appreciated by school staff. They might complain that, to make such corrections, they have to take time away from responsibilities that appear to be more closely related to the education of the students in the school. Certainly, the correction of the data will take staff away from other tasks that need to be done.

Clerical staff in school offices are probably responsible for data entry and will be asked to make any necessary corrections. These office clerical staff are also still responsible for all those things we remember from the days when we were in school. However, the addition of computers in these offices, connected to databases with thousands of data elements, has imposed added responsibilities on these staff. Someone has to enter the data. In addition, in many districts, the number of clerical staff in school offices has remained static over the years, while the number of data elements that need to be entered into the computer systems has increased. Thus, when someone from the "central office" calls or writes to the principal stating that data were entered incorrectly, these staff will not be happy.

These problems exemplify the infamous "data burden" imposed on schools. The burden is not merely the requirement to correct one data element. School personnel are responsible for entire databases. It is not unreasonable to assume that a moderately sized school might be responsible for more than 100,000 data elements. The burden at the school site is apparent when we recognize that staff are responsible for entering all of these data elements and updating them accurately.

Once the data are received from the schools on the day of the "snapshot," there must be other staff in place who can review the initial submission of data, validate the information, and assist the schools in making corrections. This is the "data burden" at the school district level. Although no amount of technological advance will make it go away completely, one of our tasks is to reduce this burden as much as possible.

In fact, it is perceived that the "data burden" is decreased for a district and its schools when staff are able to see why data are collected. If the data flow down, back to the schools and districts in the form of information that can be used, staff will see the benefit from the work that they do to enter and validate the data. Information based on the data must get back to the place where the data were entered, or else staff will believe that the burden is too great. And, if this is the case, data accuracy will also suffer.

The phrase "data comparability" is used so often that it has almost become a mantra. The fact that the data in the CCD are comparable enables district staff, and other members of the education community, to be advocates for increased funding or for a redistribution of resources in states based on data, not on simple anecdotal stories.

The movement toward "accountability" in all aspects of education has grown. Schools and school districts across the country are being held accountable for the results of their instructional programs. As Californians know, their method of financing education has changed. Since a vote of the populace some years ago reducing the local property taxes, expenditures for education have not kept pace with expenditures in many other states.

According to information from the 1998-99 CCD, California ranks near the bottom in per pupil expenditures for education in the United States and it has the second highest student/teacher ratio. These facts are important both to educators and to students in California. These data have also been used by educators to point out that if districts in the state are to be held accountable for the results of instructional programs, education needs to be funded more adequately.

To the credit of the California state government today, indications are that funding for education in the state will greatly increase in the near future.

Other examples of comparisons that can be made using the CCD are

• the number of migrant students in a school district,
• the number of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students in language programs, and
• diploma recipients by racial/ethnic category and sex.

Earlier, it was noted that many school and district personnel do not know about the CCD. In the past, dissemination was not adequate and information about the CCD often did not filter back down to schools and districts. This is changing rapidly. In recent years, the CCD has been placed on CD-ROM, greatly expanding awareness of it in the education community. The CD-ROM provides tools that enable users, not just computer programmers, to examine and compare the data.

But the real change in the dissemination of the CCD has occurred because of the growth of the Internet. Through the Internet, especially the World Wide Web, the CCD is available to schools, districts, and the public at large. Recently, the NCES Web Site was extensively revised. By going to http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/aboutccd.asp, one is led through an explanation of the CCD and the set of surveys. Reports are available along with data sets.

Some people still believe that data are collected solely for the purpose of collecting: that is, data being collected for the sake of data and for nothing else. But staff involved in data collection at the state and national levels want to make the results of that collection available to those who are responsible for gathering the information at the school and district levels. Now, with the CCD easily accessible to educators throughout the country, people can see the results of their labor, and they can compare these results with those of other states, districts, or schools.

It is still true that data flow up. But the information and data sets that result from the data entered at schools also flow down. School district personnel responsible for making decisions will use the CCD as the dissemination improves through the use of the Internet. The data will be used because they are comparable and dependable. They are comparable because of the work of NCES. They are dependable because of the work and dedication of the education community: from schools, to school districts, to state departments of education.