1 / 26

Purpose

Sisyphus or State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF): How California Succeeded in Publicly Reporting SFSF Postsecondary Indicators c11 and c12 Sonya Edwards and Karl Scheff NCES MIS 2012 Conference. Purpose. Share the process California went through to produce the indicators;

jena
Download Presentation

Purpose

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sisyphus or State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF): How California Succeeded in Publicly Reporting SFSF Postsecondary Indicators c11 and c12Sonya Edwards and Karl ScheffNCES MIS 2012 Conference

  2. Purpose • Share the process California went through to produce the indicators; • Current and projected costs; • Considerations; • Findings; and • Next steps.

  3. California Rolls the Rock • Difficult new report with a short timeline • Many states said they would be unable to publicly report the SFSF postsecondary outcome indicators c11 and c12 by the September 30, 2011 deadline. (Source: Federal Register - 9/23/2011)

  4. Acronyms • CPEC – California Postsecondary Education Commission • NSC – National Student Clearinghouse • CCC – California Community Colleges • CSU – California State University • UC – University of California • IHE – Institution of Higher Education • CALPADS – California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System

  5. The SFSF Postsecondary Indicators In-State Postsecondary Enrollment (c) 12: Of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19 (b)(l)(i) who enroll in a public IHE (as defined in section 101 (a) of the HEA) in the State within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma, the number and percentage who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit (applicable to a degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE. • public IHE only (no private postsecondary) • enrolled within 16 months of graduation • complete one year’s credit within two years of postsecondary enrollment

  6. The SFSF Postsecondary Indicators National Postsecondary Enrollment (c) 11: Of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(l)(i), the number and percentage who enroll in an Institution of Higher Education (IHE) (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma. • Public or private postsecondary enrollment • Postsecondary enrollment within 16 months of high school graduation

  7. Planning Two separate processes: • C11 National Indicator – National Student Clearinghouse – contract ($78K) • C12 In-State Indicator – California Postsecondary Education Commission – memo of understanding for data sharing (no cost)

  8. Cohorts of Graduates Cohorts to report September 30, 2011 C11 – National – 2008-09 Graduating Class C12 – In State – 2006-07 Graduating Class

  9. SFSF (In-state) Indicator C12 Match Process

  10. Process for In-State Indicator c12 • CPEC match process anticipated • Data in wrong fields (e.g., Lname vs. Fname) • Partial names from CCC • Middle names that were really part of first or last name • Misspellings • Unknown schools (62 students in district, not school) • Some CCCs don’t recognize a local district in their college district • Hyphenated last (or first) names – turned out not to be a problem • Nicknames • Name suffixes and prefixes

  11. Match Process Stage 1: Match graduate to postsecondary enrollment Assigned confidence score for match • 0 – Best possible match (everything, including ethnicity matches) • 1 – Good match without ethnicity • 2 – First Name / Last Name swapped –some potential for false positives • 3 – Unknown or bad school codes in postsecondary data – CDE ended up using this level in reports

  12. Issues Encountered in CPEC Match Process Stage 1 Down to the wire in getting the file back primarily because CPEC did not get data from in-state IHEs until August External data problems • CCC names truncated to 3 characters • UC and CSU names – all in one column • Missing or bad SSN in higher ed students (~260 students) • 343 distinct high school graduation dates

  13. Issues Encountered in CPEC Match Process Stage 1 Definitions • One year of credit (UC, CSU) • Semester – 12 units • Quarter – 18 units (multiplied by .67 to convert to semester units) • One year credit = 24 semester units • One year of credit (CCC) • Proxy of achieving sophomore student level (check age of students in grad file)

  14. Match Process Stage 2: Examine student’s college credit accumulated • Sometimes had to use probabilistic matching across postsecondary enrollments because not all students had SSN in IHE data

  15. SFSF (National) Indicator C11 Match Process

  16. Issues Encountered with C11 • Issues encountered • Summary file not importable to database table; as a result, our public report does not reflect students that opted out of a directory release (not parse-able, too large) • Student directory opt-outs not flagged as enrolled in student level file. We sought an informal opinion through PTAC on whether NSC could treat our request as a non-directory request.

  17. Challenges of Producing C11, C12 Reports Multiple sources of data: • Student-level graduate data at SEA; • Student-level in-state IHE data at another state agency; • National student outcome data at NSC. No standard student identifier: • IHEs use SSN • SEA uses state assigned K-12 statewide student identifier (SSID)

  18. Challenges of Producing C11, C12 Reports • Data quality, particularly in initial year • Aggressive schedule • Lack of standard school identifier among systems; • College Board School Code <> SEA School Code • No cross-walk between NCES School ID and College Board School Code • Communicating indicator requirements to school districts • #1 FAQ, why are you reporting on data that is so old? • Lack of funding

  19. Summary of Workload for State Personnel

  20. The Results • http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ • Among the first positive press we’ve seen about our CALPADS system • “We’re now starting to track this stuff in a systematic way, which is a good thing,” Professor Russell Rumberger, UC Santa Barbara, California Dropout Research Project • “Now we have better and newer information than we’ve had before. Now we can see trends.” Kathryn Baron, Thoughts on Public Education

  21. Next Steps/Future Challenges • The agency that provided C12 in-state data was closed due to budget cuts (CPEC) • Plan to establish a 3-year contract with NSC to perform the match process for both c12 and c11 • Requesting 2012-13 state operations funds to cover the cost of the 3-year contract, estimated at $427K • We may send a more formal inquiry to PTAC regarding student directory opt-outs in NSC now that the new FERPA regulations are out

More Related