|
V–A |
You Have Longitudinal Data—Now What?
Nancy Smith, Data Quality Campaign
Terry Bergner, Consultant, Data Quality Campaign
So you collect data—lots and lots of data—enrollment, assessment, college readiness,
graduation—now what? The Data Quality Campaign has been interviewing states about
data usage and sharing, specifically around college readiness data and its work with
outside organizations to analyze the data. In this session, presenters discussed
what they found and listened to participants' thoughts and experiences around data use.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Sessions in LDS track:
I-A, II-A, III-A, IV-A, V-A, VI-A, VII-A, VIII-A, IX-A, X-A, XI-A, and XI-D
|
|
V–B |
Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) Data Warehouse, SIF and Portal Project Completion Case Study
Edward Giroux and Betty Landry, Rhode Island Department of Education
Manos Stefanakos and Greg Nadeau, ESP Solutions Group
Data warehousing, SIF, and statewide portals are ambitious multi-year efforts for states to tackle.
This spring, the Rhode Island Department of Education completed its initial 24-month contract to:
(a) update its vertical reporting systems to enable SIF and CSV uploaded and validated data from LEAs,
(b) establish an authoritative central relational data repository and dimensional analytic repository;
and (c) provide a platform for data driven collaboration.
Download PDF File:
Sessions in Statewide LDS track:
I-B, II-B, III-B, IV-B, V-B, VI-B, VII-B, VIII-B, IX-B, X-B, and XI-B
|
|
V–C |
Expanding Access to EDFacts Data and Reports on www.ed.gov/edfacts: Interactive Session
Susan Thompson-Hoffman, U. S. Department of Education, EDFacts
Corey Chatis, Tennessee Department of Education
With the increase in requests for EDFacts data and reports, the U. S. Department of Education
is placing critical EDFacts data on the status and progress of No Child Left Behind and
associated data on www.ed.gov/edfacts for expanded
access by U. S. Department of Education staff and states. No licenses are required to
access these data. Since this is a new effort, part of this session encouraged meeting
participants to provide input on the types of EDFacts data and reports states would
welcome on this site.
Sessions in EDEN/EDFacts track:
I-C, II-C, III-C, IV-C, V-C, VI-C, VII-C, VIII-C, IX-C, X-C, XI-C, and XII-C
|
|
V–D |
And How Do You Define "School"?
Lee Hoffman, National Center for Education Statistics
Alyssa Alston, Council of Chief State School Officers
"School" is a short word with a long list of possible definitions. This session reported
on work to collect and analyze definitions of "school" used in state and federal programs
and to organize the criteria used in these definitions into a set of key characteristics.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Sessions in Federal track:
I-F, II-F, III-F, IV-D, IV-F, V-D, V-E, V-F, VI-D, VI-F, VII-D, VIII-E, X-E, and XI-E
|
|
V–E |
An Exploratory Evaluation of the Data from the Pilot Teacher Compensation Survey: School Year 2005–06
Frank Johnson and Stephen Q. Cornman, National Center for Education Statistics
This seminar presented an overview of the new Common Core Data, Teacher Compensation Survey (TCS), and
key findings. The Pilot Teacher Compensation Survey: School Year 2005–06, collected individual teacher
data from the administrative records of seven volunteer states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
In 2007, NCES launched the pilot data collection, and it received data from the seven states,
totaling 509,225 records and representing 497,927 teachers. We presented median base salaries
and counts of teachers by highest level of education achieved, years of teaching experience, age,
race/ethnicity, gender, and geographic location. In addition to the overview, we presented
summary data on the relationship between teacher salaries and high-poverty schools, contrasted with
the relationship between teacher salaries and low-poverty schools. We also examined the
relationship between teacher attributes and high poverty schools, as well as the relationship
between teacher attributes and low poverty schools.
Twenty states have volunteered to participate in the TCS in 2008, totaling 1.4 million records.
The Teachers Compensation Survey: School Year 2006–07 will collect data from the seven states in
the pilot study, plus Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Sessions in Federal track:
I-F, II-F, III-F, IV-D, IV-F, V-D, V-E, V-F, VI-D, VI-F, VII-D, VIII-E, X-E, and XI-E
|
|
V–F |
Determining the Factors in Title I Allocations
William Sonnenberg, National Center for Education Statistics
Lucinda Dalzell, Patricia Ream, and Ian Millett, U.S. Census Bureau
More than $13 billion are allocated to local education agencies under Title I of the No Child Left
Behind Act. In this three-part presentation, we presented details on the rules and regulations
that determine how the allocations are made, details of the multifaceted process for producing
the poverty and population estimates that are a primary determinant of the allocations, and a
comprehensive overview of the processes for the biennial update of school district boundaries.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations:
Sessions in Federal track:
I-F, II-F, III-F, IV-D, IV-F, V-D, V-E, V-F, VI-D, VI-F, VII-D, VIII-E, X-E, and XI-E
|
|
V–G |
Implementation Forum: District Level Models
Judi Barnett, Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit (Pennsylvania)
Richard Nadeau, Horry County Schools (South Carolina)
Peter Coleman, Virginia Department of Education
Jason Wrage, Integrity Technology Solutions
Aziz Elia, CPSI, Ltd.
Chad Humphress, MAS
Moderator: Larry L. Fruth II, Ph.D., Schools Interoperability Framework Association
State departments benefit as districts become more data aware and capable. The Schools
Interoperability Framework specification enables seamless data integration among disparate
applications at the school and district level. This session discussed a variety of
implementation models at the district level including the use of SIF in vertical
reporting to the state.
Sessions in SIF track:
II-G, III-G, IV-G, V-G, VI-G, VII-G, VIII-G, IX-G, X-G, XI-G, and XII-G
|
|
V–H |
Bringing Data Quality Into the Large K-12 Enterprise
Roland Moore and Robert Curran, Orange County Public Schools (Florida)
Orange County Public Schools (OCPS), the 11th largest school district in the nation, has embarked on
a district-wide initiative to engage schools in the pro-active, year-round review and correction
of student data errors. OCPS' goal is multifold: eliminate the labor-intensive, months-long
cycles of data amendment following each state submission; ease the costs and time pressures
associated with data validation; ensure timely receipt of state funding; and accurately
demonstrate district compliance with state and federal mandates. This session
highlighted OCPS' efforts to automate and streamline key processes associated with
the certification and monitoring of data in 175 schools.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
|
|
V–I |
NCES Handbooks Online: Linking to Other Data Standards
Ghedam Bairu, National Center for Education Statistics
Beth Young, Quality Information Partners
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Handbooks Online
provides guidance on
consistency in data definitions and maintenance of education data so that such data can be
accurately aggregated and analyzed. Handbooks Online provides a comprehensive listing of
all data elements that might be needed for decision making related to managing an education
system, reporting to state and federal education agencies, and computing indicators of
school effectiveness. This session provided an overview of the Handbooks Online
project and website, and the recent work to stay integrated in other national
standardization projects such as Schools Interoperability Framework Association
and the Forum's Education Data Model.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
Sessions in Forum track:
|