BAY AREA COUNCIL EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM MEETING & HEARING REPORT

Notes from the Bay Area Council and Commonwealth Club Meeting on Education Data Systems

February 12, 2008

Speakers:

Andy Ball opened the meeting. He pointed out that long a leader in higher education, the United States is dropping, compared to other developed countries, in the proportion of 25 – 34 year olds with a college degree. Statistics show that the number of engineering degrees awarded in the U.S. is down 20% from its peak in 1985. Only about 6% of U.S. undergraduates major in engineering today. It is 12% in Europe, 20% in Singapore, and 40% in China.

According to the U.S. Labor Department, the number of jobs for “computer/math scientists” will jump by 40% to 3.5 million over the ten years ending in 2012. But a 2006 survey of 1.3 million full-time college freshmen showed that only 1.1% planned to major in computer science.

If our talent base weakens, our lead in technology, business, and economics will fade fast. U. S. competitiveness is threatened if we don’t succeed in our goal to transform education so that it meets the needs of all children.

Jim Wunderman reiterated that the “Getting Down to Facts” studies told us that we need to transform the education complex in this state into a learning organization. In order for us to make the best decisions about resource allocations at the macro level, and modifications in instruction at the individual level, we need data.

Over the past decade, major portions of the American economy have embraced a strong commitment to constant, effective, and consistent quality improvement using data. In education, we have highly trained and highly motivated people, each individually trying to do the right thing. If that approach were enough, we wouldn’t have an achievement gap or disappointing scores on national exams.

We need clear, available, accurate, current, and complete data to allow dedicated people to make good decisions. We need data that tracks a student over the course of their time in public education. We need it to tell us what programs that student was in and how it all worked out. Did the student graduate, did he or she, go to college. Did she graduate from college? Did she get a job? We don’t know these things about the products of a system upon which California spends about $70 Billion a year.

Kathy Baron, moderator, stated that there is currently no solid longitudinal data to record programs. She emphasized the importance of tracking individual students from pre-K into the working world. There is a $15M, 3-yr contract with IBM currently to develop the “CalPADS and CalTIDES” longitudinal data systems.

Jay Pfeiffer presented "The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program" — a history of the successful data system that he championed in Florida and described its current configuration.

Please click here to view Jay Pfeiffer’s PowerPoint presentation

Laura Schwalm stated that Garden Grove, which won the Broad Prize, is 50% English Language Learners. (See: Information on Garden Grove’s practices that won the Broad Prize)

Schwalm credits much of their success to two district-wide goals that can be measured at the school, classroom, and student levels. The goals are:

i) any student who has been in the district for five years is proficient in reading and math; and,

ii) any English language learner will advance by one level each year on the statewide English proficiency test. This means that students will be focused on improving their English skills while, at the same time, working on their academic skills. Schools and teachers cannot make excuses based on student mobility because they will only be held accountable for students who stayed in the district for five years or more. The key is setting the focus and staying true to it.

Garden Grove put data systems into place that help to analyze performance based on facts rather than opinions, and that highlight where to adjust the resources based on where the needs are. They realized the importance of putting data in the hands of teachers.
Laura sees their current data system as a flashlight to show students and teachers what they know and don’t know. The system is meant to be flexible and user-friendly, becoming more specific over time. The California API and the federal NCLB are perceived as hammers, unlike the Garden Grove system which Schwalm views as being the “voice of the students.”

***