E N D
1. Quality Data for Decision Making Del Dawley, Pima Community College
Rob Franks, Consultant
3. What is Quality Data?
Data that is Highly Reliable;
Data that is Valid;
Data with an Error Rate of less than 3%;
Data that Tells a Story!
Data that Answers the Question Posed!
4. How do you get Quality Data? Common definitions that everyone understands
Data can be shared across platforms, institutions, and agencies
FERPA, the elephant in the room
Student tracking?
Why do you need Quality Data?
6. Keys to Success Communication with the Requestor of the Information
Utilizing Common Definitions
Sharing Data
Utilizing appropriate resources
Comprehensive Student Accountability System
Adhering to the Scientific Method
7. Where do you get Quality Data? Local data collection
Someone is responsible and understands the need
Everyone knows exactly what to collect
Software for data collection (CATEMA)
National Student Clearing House
FEDES
How often do you collect data?
8. Why do you collect data? If you dont collect and analyze data you will never know if you are being successful
Longitudinal data can show changes over time
To fulfill federal regulations
To make programmatic improvements
Know when and where to make changes
9. Why do we want Quality Data? High Stakes are Associated with Perkins Reporting Sanctions If an eligible agency fails to meet the state adjusted levels of performance, has not implemented an improvement plan
, the Secretary may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, withhold from the eligible agency all, or a portion of, the eligible agencys allotment under this Title. (Perkins III, section 123(d)(2))
10. How can data best be presented? Disaggregated data
Aggregated in matrix format
Graphs
Bar graphs snapshot comparisons
Line graphs longitudinal change
Pie graphs comparisons (proportions)
Radar graphs whole program summaries
19. Interpreting Data Who is using the data?
Why are they using it?
What does the data mean?
Mean vs. median
Why show data range?
Why show comparisons to state and federal norms?
21. Making Improvements Strategic Planning
Specific goals and objectives
Data results can be used to determine actions
Reporting your data and negotiating with state and federal agencies
Quality data can provide a basis for setting new goals
Quality data will indicate that you have a grasp of reality and support your arguments
22. References STATE LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS AND STUDENT PRIVACY PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FAMILY EDUATIONS RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT OCT 2006
http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/ArticlesWhitePapers.asp?SubPAID=32
http://www.hklaw.com/content/whitepapers/FERPA%20and%20Longitudinal%20Data%20Systems.pdf
23. Sharing Data & Utilizing Ones Resources FERPA The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
20 U.S.C. Chapter 31 Sec. 1232g
http://www.azpscptp.org/CPIII/Archieves/FERPA%20-%20USC.doc
CFR Title 34 Education, Part 99 http://www.azpscptp.org/CPIII/Archieves/FERPA%20-%20CFR.doc
24. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR RESEARCHERS TO SHARE DATA
25. Data Quality Campaign http://www.DataQualityCampaign.org
The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) is a national, collaborative effort to encourage and support state policymakers to
improve the collection, availability, and use of high-quality education data, and
implement state longitudinal data systems to improve student achievement.
26. The National Student Clearing House http://www.nslc.org
Student Tracker
http://www.nslc.org/colleges/Tracker/default.htm
Point of Contact:
Melanie Bell
Director, Western Region
National Student Clearinghouse
P O Box 19345
Spokane, WA 99219
Office: 509.838.2112
27. Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES) www.doleta.gov/Performance/FEDES-Project-Factsheet-042506.doc
Ms. Sarah Harlan
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State of Maryland
Phone: 410-230-6120
Email: sharlan@dllr.state.md.us
28. EXAMPLE
YUHSD Graduate Analysis
30. YUHSD Graduate Analysis AY2003/2004 February 2005
By
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Research & Grants
31. Yuma Union High School District(YUHSD) Academic Year 2003/2004
Total Number of HS Graduates = 1592
Overall Increase = +4.05%
Count Percentage Change
Cibola High School = 541 33.98% +0.52%
KOFA High School = 549 34.49% +0.89%
Yuma High School = 502 31.53% -1.41%
32. AWC Admitted Students 846 Students were admitted to AWC
53.14% of the YUHSD Graduate
Decrease of -11.24% from AY02-03
Count Percentage Change
Cibola High School 283 33.45% -3.81%
KOFA High School 323 38.18% -4.27%
Yuma High School 240 28.37% -0.46%
33. Other Institutions of Higher Learning An Additional 71 (4.46%) Identified as going on to another institution of higher learning.
Total 57.6% entered an Institution of Higher Learning.
34. List of Additional InstitutionsTop Six
35. Time Frames of Admission Admitted prior to Graduation Percentage Change
Number of Students = 407 48.11% +6.99%
(Concurrent High School Students)
Admitted as Fall 2004 incoming Freshmen
Number of Students = 414 48.94% -0.50%
Admitted After Fall 2004
Number of Students = 25 2.96% -6.38%
36. Question Posed? How many students who were admitted prior to Graduation (May 2004), went on to enroll in Fall 2004 Courses?
244 Student Enrolled in Fall 2004
(Concurrent High School Students)
This Equates to 28.84% Decrease -6.63%
The Overall Penetration Rate for Fall 2004 = 39.2%
Decrease -2.04%
38. Overall AWC Gender & Ethnicity Distribution Fall 2004 Female = 60.0%
Male = 39.2%
Unknown = 0.8%
Non-Resident Alien = 0.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native = 2.2%
Asian = 1.6%
Black or African American = 2.8%
Hispanic or Latino = 60.01%
White = 30.5%
Unknown = 2.2%
39. FIRST TIME STUDENTSFull-Time vs. Part-Time - Fall 2004 Count Percentage Change
First Time Students 380 44.92% +1.87%
First Time Full-Time 260 68.42% -1.63%
First Time Part-Time 120 31.58%
44. Fall 2004 GPA Comparison YUHSD Average GPA = 2.1
Decreased by -0.08 over AY02-03
AWC Average GPA = 2.05
Decreased by -0.07 over AY02-03
45. REMEDIATION 497 (58.75%) HS Graduates required remediation in at least one of the 3 subject areas of Reading, English and/or Math.
Reading = 119 (14.07%)
English = 448 (52.96%)
Math = 255 (30.14%)
46. REMEDIATIONCont. One Subject Area = 51.13%
Two Subject Areas = 30.97%
All Three Subject Areas = 7.45%
47. REMEDIATION Gender/Ethnic Breakdown
Remediation Overall
Female = 56.94% 56.03%
Male = 43.06% 43.97%
American Indian or Alaska Native = 0.20% 0.59%
Asian = 0.20% 1.18%
Black or African American = 1.41% 0.82%
Hispanic or Latino = 77.46% 67.26%
White = 17.51% 26.48%
Unknown = 3.22% 3.66%
49. Career & Technical EducationYUHSD Out of the 1592 High School Graduates 496 (31.16%) are identified as being CTE Students at the High School Level.
473 (95.36%) of the 496 CTE Students are considered to be TechPrep Students.
1096 (68.84%) Academically Orientated Students
50. Career & Technical Education- Continued Out of the 496 that are identified as being CTE Students, 283 (57.66%) went on to an institution of Higher Learning.
268 (94.7%) of the 283 CTE Students are considered to be TechPrep Students.
Out of the 1096 Academically Orientated Students 572 (52.19%) went on to an institution of Higher Learning.
51. Career & Technical EducationAWCs Student Admissions Out of the 846 High School Graduates attending AWC 279 (32.98%) were identified as CTE Students at the High School Level.
264 (94.62%) of the CTE Students are considered to be TechPrep Students.
567 (67.02%) Academically Orientated Students
53. Career & Technical EducationFall 2004 Enrollees 624 (73.76%) High School Graduates Enrolled
189 (30.29%) CTE Students
178 (94.18%) TechPrep Students
435 (69.71%) Academically Orientated Students
54. Career & Technical EducationFirst Time Students
414 (48.94%) Total HS Graduates that are First Time Students
131 (31.64%) CTE Students
126 (96.18%) of the CTE Students are Identified as TechPrep
283 (68.36%) Academically Orientated Students
56. 127 (15.01%) CTE Students
553 (65.37%) Academic Students
166 (19.62%) Undecided/Undeclared/ Personal Enrichment Students Post-Secondary CTE Identified Students Based Upon Declared Degree & Major
58. AWC Overall Retention & Persistence Fall 2004 Retention = 84.14%
Fall 2004 Persistence to Spring 2005 = 61.51%
59. YUHSD Retention 603 (71.28%) of the 846 Students were Retained thru the End of Term Fall 2004.
CTE = 211 (34.99%)
TechPrep = 200 (94.79%)
Academically Orientated Students = 392 (65.01%)
60. 584 (69.03%) of the 846 Students Persisted to the Spring 2004 Term.
CTE = 202 (34.59%)
TechPrep = 193 (95.55%)
Academically Orientated Students = 382 (65.41%) YUHSD Persistence
61. Questions and Answers Del Dawley
Dept of Planning and Research
Pima Community College
4905C E Broadway Blvd
Tucson AZ 85709
Del.dawley@pima.edu
Rob Franks
Educational Consultant
1126 Lexington Street
Taylor TX 76574
Rob.franks_48@yahoo.comwww.Techpreptexas.org