Skip Navigation

Concurrent Session V Presentations

Thursday, July 12, 2012
9:45 am – 10:45 am

V–B: Arizona Ready-for-Rigor Project: Data Dashboard Development for a Statewide Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Grant

Sarah Polasky, Barnaby Wasson, Ann Nielsen, and Virginia McElyea; Arizona State University

    Supported by a $43.8 million Teacher Incentive Fund grant (USDOE #S385A100163), the Arizona Ready-for-Rigor Project supports school reform at over 60 high-need public schools statewide. Two of the grant’s focal areas are teacher effectiveness and teacher retention. This session reviews initial project structure, Year 1 successes, and lessons learned in relation to developing an integrated longitudinal data and visualization system in a large-scale implementation grant. Presenters emphasize the ongoing development of linking student growth with teacher evaluations to create a data dashboard that supports using data for instructional decisionmaking.

Download PDF Presentation:

V–C: Shaping Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Next Steps: Using Evaluation Findings to Accelerate Momentum

Karee Dunn and Denise Airola, University of Arkansas
Mickey Garrison, Douglas Education Service District (Oregon)

    Evaluation results from Oregon’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) statewide implementation of job-embedded Data Driven Decision-Making (DDDM) training via the Oregon DATA Project (ODP) indicated teachers made progress with DDDM and students reaped the benefits. But how will the ODP maintain forward momentum and even accelerate it? By looking back to determine what the next steps should be. In this presentation, lessons learned and next steps are discussed, including advanced data training through webinars, plans for future interactive online training, and plans to develop regional training sites to address geographical challenges in the state in ways that support the continuation of ongoing face-to-face DDDM training.

V–D: Data Quality in the Collection and Reporting of American Indian/Alaska Native Education Data

Dawn Mackety and Malia Villegas, National Congress of American Indians

    Executive Order 13592 seeks to improve Native education by requiring the development of “sufficient data resources to inform progress on Federal performance indicators, in close collaboration with the…National Center for Education Statistics.” Panelists highlight data quality issues and opportunities in relation to American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and tribal education. Discussion includes the impact of the U.S. Department of Education’s implementation of OMB Racial and Ethnicity Classifications on the availability of AI/AN data and the impact of the recent decision to disinclude Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools from the SASS. Panelists discuss alternative data collection methodologies and suggest alternative data reporting approaches to improve NCES policy.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

V–E: Developing Data Standards for Course Information

Janis Brown, National Center for Education Statistics
Jennifer Laird, MPR Associates, Inc.

    Momentum in the field of education to use common yardsticks is evidenced by the Common Core State Standards Initiative and Common Education Data Standards. While student transcripts and course records are universal sources of data across schools and districts nationwide, the coding of the data may not be standardized. As states continue to develop longitudinal data systems and capture course information and transcript data, it is important to have a common yardstick to identify and classify the information. This session provides information on course standards and coding methodologies used in transcript studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

Download PDF Presentation:

V–F: Overcoming Barriers of Turf, Trust, Technical Issues, and Time Through P–20W Data Governance

Laura Sonn, Data Quality Campaign
Brandon Williams, Illinois State Board of Education

    P–20W data governance requires policymaker leadership to ensure a purpose-driven statewide longitudinal data system. When policy leaders drive P–20W data governance, states ensure that the data system is purpose-driven based on the state’s vision for education that crosses all agencies, the right people from multiple agencies are part of the conversation in setting the shortand long-term education direction for the state, and all agencies and actors are held accountable for the effective use of longitudinal data to advance education. Presenters discuss the role of executive leadership in executing P–20W data governance and the successes and challenges that Illinois has faced in the process of establishing data governance.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

V–G: Maximizing EDFacts Usage Across U.S. Department of Education Initiatives

Rachel Sutcliffe, U.S. Department of Education
Nancy Smith, DataSmith Solutions
Jim Yun, AEM Corporation

    The U.S. Department of Education (ED) continues to place a high priority across initiatives to use data to inform both policy and research. Recent contracts through the Institute of Education Sciences’s (IES) Regional Education Laboratory (REL) program and upcoming grants through the Comprehensive Centers include requirements for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) technical assistance and data use. This session discusses a new initiative to explore ways for the RELs and Comprehensive Centers to include EDFacts data in their programs. Activities include workgroups to explore appropriate access to and use of EDFacts data and to identify areas for training and technical assistance.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation:

V–H: Postsecondary Data: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

Archie Cubarrubia, National Center for Education Statistics

    This session provides an overview of the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the core postsecondary data collection conducted annually by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). IPEDS gathers information from every college, university, and technical and vocational institution that participates in the federal student financial aid programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, requires that institutions that participate in federal student aid programs report data on enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty and staff, finances, institutional prices, and student financial aid. These data are made available to students and parents through the College Navigator college search website and to researchers and others through the IPEDS Data Center. In this session, participants will become familiar with institutional data reported to IPEDS and data tools available.

V–I: Taking a Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) From Fundamentals to Advanced Capabilities

Melissa Straw, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Ernie Morgan, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Brian Pritzl, VersiFit Software, LLC

    The development of a statewide longitudinal data system presents a myriad of daunting tasks. Building the advanced user functionalities necessary to truly transform the process by which educators interpret data and then implement that data via their decisionmaking procedures may appear an interminable goal. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction demonstrates the fundamental processes and tools it, along with key partners, is currently developing and piloting in several districts across the state. Advanced features include unique presentations of student academic growth (including statistical projections of growth) and value-added data (including differential effects) at the school, grade, and classroom levels.

Download Zipped PowerPoint Presentation: