Concurrent Session II Presentations
Wednesday, July 11, 2011
3:30 pm – 4:20 pm
II–A: District Tools for Understanding and Managing Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates
Bari Erlichson, New Jersey Department of Education
Catrin Davies, Public Consulting Group
In this session, participants learn about the pathways taken by the New Jersey Department of
Education to calculate the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, report on it, and educate
stakeholders. Participants gain insight to the process for calculating the new measure; the trainings
that were developed to support and inform district personnel; the reporting tools that were
deployed to help educators identify students who are at risk; and the steps taken to empower
stakeholders with an informed understanding of the new calculation.
II–B: High School Rankings by the Media: What We Learned About the Importance of Data Quality in the Common Core of Data and Opportunities for Improvements
Marilyn Seastrom, Acting Deputy Commissioner and Chief Statistician, National Center for Education Statistics
Marie Stetser, NCES Program Director, Common Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics
Julian Montoya, Nevada Department of Education
John Gonzalez, New York City Public Schools
Robert J. Morse, U.S. News & World Report
In May 2012, U.S. News and World Report published a High School Rankings report that used
several Common Core of Data (CCD) variables from the 2009-10 school data file in the ranking
methodology. A student-teacher ratio was also included in the report. Following its publication,
several schools that appeared in the rankings refuted the data that appeared in the report.
This was followed by many press inquiries to several State Education Agencies, Local Education
Agencies, and the National Center for Education Statistics about the quality of the data used. It
became obvious that some of the published CCD enrollment and teacher data were inaccurate.
This session will discuss the errors that were found in the data, why this happened, and planned
improvements to prevent future errors from being included in the report. The session will include
discussion from SEA, LEA, and NCES perspectives.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentations:
II–C: What Separates Males and Females? A Multivariate Analysis of the Conditional Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on Postsecondary Enrollment and Attainment
Terris Ross, National Center for Education Statistics
Numerous studies have documented persistent gaps between the educational attainment of
White, Black, and Hispanic males. Further, there is evidence of growing gender gaps within these
racial/ethnic groups, as females participate and persist in education at higher rates than their male
counterparts (Aud, Fox, and KewalRamani 2010; Aud et al. 2011; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges,
and Hayek 2006; Radford, Berkner, Wheeless, and Shepherd 2010; Snyder and Dillow 2011). This
study uses logistic regression models (separately by gender and race/ethnicity) to determine the
extent to which background variables, achievement measures, math course taking, engagement
indicators, and risk factors—such as part-time employment—affect the likelihood of on-time
graduation and postsecondary enrollment and attainment for males and females.
II–D: The Bridge Between Data Standards and Learning Standards—Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)
Maureen Wentworth, Council of Chief State School Officers
Jim Goodell, Quality Information Partners
Greg Grossmeier, Creative Commons
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a bridge to equitable expectations for student
learning across state lines. The Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) bridge existing data
standards and systems with a common vocabulary for data across the P–20W spectrum. But,
what about the connection between the data standards and the content standards? This session
addresses how key organizations are working together to bridge what has been a gray area between
data standards and content standards. The session demonstrates how CCSS data are contained
within CEDS defined elements, including metadata describing relationships between and among
competencies, learning resources, and competency-based pathways. The presenters will discuss
how the topic is serving as a bridge for collaborative work across other separate initiatives, such
as Learning Registry (LR) and the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI).
II–E: Is There Value in the Value-Added Data Approach? A Statistical Overview
Elana Broch, Princeton University
A popular approach to assessing teacher performance is the use of “value-added” data analysis.
The technique recently received media attention when the New York City Board of Education was
required to publicly release performance data based on this methodology for 18,000 teachers.
This technique is an extension of regression, where one or more variables are used to predict an
expected value. Performance can then be measured in terms of the deviation from this expected
value. This session is a gentle introduction/refresher to linear and multiple regression, culminating
in an gentle introduction to value-added data. The pros and cons of using value-added data are
discussed, and participants are encouraged to bring examples of the use of value-added data in
II–F: Leveraging Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems for EDFacts Reporting
Joel McFarland, U.S. Department of Education
Ross Lemke, AEM Corporation
This session discusses how states define a “statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS)” in relation
to the overall data system and how states leverage their SLDS for EDFacts reporting to the U.S.
Department of Education. Our research found that states vary widely in their use of SLDS for
federal data reporting. This session shares different state models for utilizing their SLDS for federal
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
II–G: Plan Reviewed…The Journey Begins
Mark Masterson, Arizona Department of Education
The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) presents its concept of a cloud-based, integrated,
statewide education data system that provides the pathway to next-generation learning for all
students. ADE proposes its vision of an education maturity model that incorporates current
initiatives in data analytics, security, data and curriculum standards, and student success
management. ADE shares its challenging beginnings, progress to date, and the valuable lessons
learned along the way.
II–H: Getting Free Help: States’ Experiences With the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) State Support Team
Corey Chatis, Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) State Support Team
Peg Votta, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Jan Kiehne, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (ConnSCU)
The Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) State Support Team (SST) provides free technical
assistance services to all states regarding their planning, implementation, and use of longitudinal
data systems. In this session, SST members provide an overview of the technical assistance
available, and state staff from Rhode Island and Connecticut discuss their experiences working
with the SST on P–20W data warehouse design and data governance efforts.
Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:
II–I: Can We Really Do This? A Story of Multi-State Procurement
Marsha Ward, Ohio Department of Education
Suzan Kinaci, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
In this session, representatives from Massachusetts and Ohio share the benefits of and challenges
faced during the current multi-state request for proposals (RFPs) effort for a statewide Instructional
Improvement System (IIS). The presenters discuss the ups, downs, and lessons learned, as well as
share some tips that could help you. Learn how these states made the decision to join together for
a single procurement and how you could do the same.