Previous Reference Desk Digests

• Phonics Instruction — July 23, 2010
• Single-Sex Education — July 16, 2010
• Teacher Candidates' Field Experiences — July 9, 2010
• Kindergarten Entry Age — July 2, 2010
• Equitable Distribution of Teachers — June 25, 2010
• Drug Abuse Prevention Programs — June 18, 2010
• Data Use by Teachers— June 11, 2010
• School Start Time — June 4, 2010
• Balance Balls and Student Attention — May 28, 2010
• Student Mentoring — May 21, 2010
• Alternative Schools — May 14, 2010
• Low-Performing Schools — May 7, 2010
• Extended Learning Time — April 30, 2010
• 21st Century Skills — April 23, 2010
• Dropout Prevention Legislation — April 16, 2010
• High-School Grade Configuration — April 9, 2010
• Middle-Grades Configuration — April 2, 2010
• Music and Infant Development — March 26, 2010
• Homework and Student Achievement — March 19, 2010
• Foreign Language Technology — March 12, 2010
• Standardized Testing — March 5, 2010
• Charter Schools — February 26, 2010
• PD for Principals — February 19, 2010
• Formative Assessment — February 12, 2010
• Limited English Proficiency — February 5, 2010
• Teacher Evaluation Models— January 29, 2010

The Reference Desk, using available evidence and research, provides quick-turnaround responses to questions submitted by education stakeholders around the Northeast and Islands Region. Every Friday, REL-NEI highlights one or two questions submitted to its Reference Desk.

How to Develop Data Systems?

Over the last six months, the Reference Desk has received a steady flow of questions regarding statewide longitudinal data systems.  Due in part to the stimulus money available for data system enhancement, the issue is back in the limelight with the recent release of the “Race to the Top Fund” RFP. One of two criteria for proposal submission is that “states must not have any laws in place barring the use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals,” according to Michele McNeil in Education Week. This issue is pertinent as linking student-achievement data to teachers and principals for the purposes of evaluations in one of the many promises of a comprehensive statewide longitudinal data system.

Question

What are the basic requirements and structures for comprehensive data systems?

Research Synopsis

Our researchers found several states and local governments that are implementing or have implemented comprehensive and longitudinal educational data systems that involve collaboration among multiple educational agencies and serve the purpose of tracking students from preschool through college. Additionally, researchers found various resources from the Data Quality Campaign that outline essential elements of longitudinal educational data systems as well as lessons learned and challenges faced in the building and implementation of data systems.

Publicly Available Resources

1. Creating a Longitudinal Data System: Using Data to Improve Student Achievement. 2006; Data Quality Campaign; 24 pages.

   This resource identifies and details the 10 essential elements of a longitudinal data system. They include: “1. A unique statewide student identifier. 2. Student-level enrollment, demographic and program participation information. 3. The ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth. 4. Information on untested students. 5. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students. 6. Student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned. 7. Student-level college readiness test scores. 8. Student-level graduation and dropout data. 9. The ability to match student records between the P–12 and post-secondary systems. 10. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity and reliability.” This resource also recommends fundamentals for constructing a longitudinal data system, including privacy protection, data architecture, and data warehousing.
   

2. How Can My State Benefit from an Educational Data Warehouse? Bergner, Terry and Smith, Nancy J.; September 2007; Data Quality Campaign; 8 pages.

   This policy brief details “what an educational data warehouse is; the benefits of developing and using a data warehouse; and design and implementation recommendations from leading states.” Three states that provide recommendations are Delaware, Maryland, and Wyoming, selected “because of the varying ages of their data warehouses and their history of data collection and use.” There are 11 recommendations in all, such as “Include stakeholders/users of the data in the planning process;” “Address security issues up front;” and “Create and implement training and professional development.”

3. Linking Education and Social Services Data To Improve Child Welfare. Smith, Susan, Staub, Deborah, Myslewicz, Mary, and Laird, Elizabeth; October 2007; Data Quality Campaign; 16 pages.

This brief includes “next-generation issues for states to consider immediately; political and technical issues related to creating linkages within and across public agencies; issues of student confidentiality” and “further reports and resources on creating critical linkages to improve overall child welfare.”

For more information on this issue, click the link below for the full response to this Reference Desk question. Our researchers also recommend the Data Quality Campaign website as a place to learn more.

Download the Full Response

If this material brings up questions of your own, please submit a new request here. If you’re interested in learning more about the Reference Desk, read about us here. And finally, share thoughts, experiences, and resources of your own in our Feedback section below.