NCES Update Summer Forum Meeting 2011 Jack Buckley NCES

NCES Update High School Longitudinal Study 2009 First Look Recent NAEP Social Studies Results Common Education Data Standards 2.0

HSLS:09 Findings Math Assessment What skills do 9th graders demonstrate? 86 percent proficient with algebraic expressions 41 percent proficient with algebraic equivalents 18 percent proficient with systems equations 9 percent proficient with linear functions Algebraic expressions Algebraic equivalents Systems equations Linear functions

HSLS:09 Findings Math Assessment Parents’ highest education attainment matters Students whose parents have high school diploma or GED: – 24 percent were in bottom quintile of math test scores; 15 percent were in top quintile – Of these same students, 83 percent knew basic algebraic concept tested (algebraic expressions) but just 6 percent showed mastery of linear function Students whose parents have master’s degree or higher: – 5 percent were in bottom quintile of math test scores; 44 percent were in top quintile – 96 percent showed mastery of algebraic expressions; 16% were proficient with linear functions

Students’ race/ethnicity intertwined with test performance… In lowest two quintiles of math test scores: HSLS:09 Findings Math Assessment

Many 9th graders took no math or science in fall 2009 Overall, 10 percent took no math courses Overall, 18 percent took no science course Lowest SES 9th graders: 17 percent took no math; 27 percent took no science Highest SES 9th graders: 6 percent took no math; 11 percent were not enrolled in science HSLS:09 Findings Math Course Taking

By socioeconomic status (SES): – Lowest SES: Just 27 percent of 9 th graders expected to earn graduate or professional degree – Highest SES: More than half (56 percent) of 9 th graders expected to earn graduate or professional degree By sex: – More females (44 percent) than males (35 percent) expected to earn graduate or professional degree HSLS:09 Findings Educational Expectations

Vast majority of 9 th graders (91 percent) reported they can either probably or definitely complete college: By socioeconomic status (SES): – Lowest SES: One-third (33 percent) reported they can definitely finish college; 13 percent reported they probably cannot finish college – Highest SES: Two-thirds (65 percent) reported they can definitely finish college; 2 percent reported that they probably cannot finish college HSLS:09 Findings Perceived Ability to Complete College

More than a quarter of 9 th graders (29 percent) did not identify occupation they wanted at age 30 About one half of 9 th graders (49 percent) had thought about an occupation “a lot” 61 percent of Black 9th graders had thought about their future job a lot, compared to 48 percent of White 9th graders HSLS:09 Findings Occupational Expectations

JanAprJun Dec MayFebJulOctAug 2009 Science 4, 8, Science TUDA NovSep 2010 Geography Mar 2009 Hispanic- White Gaps 2010 U.S. History 2009 Science HOTS & ICT 2011 Reading 4 & Math 4 & Math TUDA 4 & Reading TUDA 4 & HSTS 2009 State Mapping 2010 Civics 2005 HSTS MCS 2009 Five Largest States 2011 NAEP Release Timeline LEGEND NAEP Report Cards NAEP Studies Proposed Release Inclusion Report

NAEP Social Science release dates: Civics: May 4, 2011 U.S. History: June 14, 2011 Geography: July 19, 2011

Changes in students’ performance on NAEP assessments in the social sciences vary by grade and subject 12

Results for Black students across the three NAEP social science assessments 13

Results for Hispanic students across the three NAEP social science assessments 14

Results by NSLP eligibility across the three NAEP social science assessments 15

Decline at grade 12No change at grade 8 Increase at grade 4

* Significantly different (p <.05) from Greatest gains since 1994 for lowest performing students at grade 4 Highest score ever at grade 8 No change since 2006 at grade 12 17

* Significantly different (p <.05) from Highest score ever at grade 4 No change since 2001 at grade 8 Decline at grade 12 18

In all three social studies assessments…  Fourth-grade scores have increased since the first assessment year.  Low-performing students have made notable gains.  Scores for Hispanic students have increased at grades 4 and 8 since the first assessment year.  The achievement gap between Hispanic and White students at grades 4 and 8 has narrowed.

Common Education Data Standards

Educators and policy makers need accurate, timely, and consistent information about students and schools in order to plan effective learning experiences, improve schools, and reduce costs. In addition, our student population is highly mobile – across districts and states, and between K-12 and postsecondary – thus the need to share high quality data requires that we develop a common vocabulary for a core subset of data elements that exist in multiple data systems. Why Do We Need Common Data Standards?

A national collaborative effort to develop voluntary, common data standards for a key set of variables. CEDS elements focus on standard definitions, code sets, and technical specifications of a subset of key data elements. This will increase data interoperability, portability, and comparability across states, districts, and higher education organizations. Voluntary Common Vocabulary What are the standards?

CEDS Stakeholders  Local Education Agencies  State Education Agencies  Institutions of Higher Education (public and private)  State Higher Education Agencies  SHEEO and CCSSO  Interoperability Standards Org: PESC and SIF  USDOE Program Offices: NCES, OPEPD, OET, OUS, OPE, and FSA  Associations: AACC, APLU, AIR, NAICU  Foundations: Gates and MSDF  Other Federal: DOL (invited)

CEDS is NOT: Required: Adoption of any or all of the CEDS standards is entirely voluntary. A data collection: CEDS does not collect data. A Federal unit record system: CEDS is a model for data standardization to enable sharing between state systems. Solely a USED undertaking: CEDS is a collaborative effort including SEAs, LEAs, state higher education organizations, institutions of higher education, and national organizations.

Version 1 Released in September, elements – focused on K-12 – Student record exchange across districts/States – Student transcripts – High school feedback reports from postsecondary to K-12

Version 2, K-12 Federal Reporting Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) (states) State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Metrics (states) Teacher Compensation Survey (states) Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) (districts) Assessment (districts and states) Support of the Common Core Curriculum District-level assessment needs for instruction

Postsec Focus for Version 2 Overall, focus will be more on postsecondary for Version 2.0 Postsecondary different from K12 – Most institutions are private (even though most enrollments are in publics) – Not all institutions in state systems – Different state governance and systems What binds them all together?

Why IPEDS? Good for state systems – Applies to all Title IV institutions regardless of whether in a state data system, but state systems could still adopt them and assist with data-sharing across institutions in their system (as well as with IPEDS reporting) – IPEDS covers topics of most interest: enrollments, transfers, completions (i.e., student mobility) Good for institutions – NCES can use CEDS to build new tools to assist with data reporting and help ease reporting burden – Institutions can share data, when appropriate, using a common language Good for project plan – Provides an achievable scope of work for Version 2.0; IPEDS is ultimately a Use Case for CEDS but also keeps work directed and manageable Good for aggregated data quality – NCES is always interested in improving data quality and comparability in its data collections – IPEDS training can provide more details to data providers and base it on CEDS, ultimately improving data quality

Example What student-level data elements do you need in your data system to report the IPEDS graduation rate for Asian women? – Sex – Race – Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity – GRS indicator – GRS cohort year – Exclusions flag (e.g., death) – Academic award level – Academic award date

Additional Possible Use Cases: How do these elements link to other existing aggregate reporting – Common Education Dataset (CDS) – Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) – Voluntary Framework for Accountability How could these data possibly be used for information exchanges across institutions/state systems? – Transfer reporting? – Community college feedback report?

Next Steps/Timeline J uly: First draft of elements, definitions and codesets were released for public comment August/September: Comments reviewed and revisions made October: Second draft released for public comment November/December: Comments reviewed and revisions made January: Version 2 released

Where to find CEDS: