1. STATS-DC 2012 Data Conference
Using P20W Data to Improve Student Achievement
Clarifying Policy Roles and Responsibilities
in P20W Data Governance
On the Web: DataQualityCampaign.org On
STATS-DC 2012 Data Conference
July 12, 2012

2. Changing the Culture Around Data Use
Past
Future

3. Bridging P-20/W Silos to Ensure Effective Data Use
Please insert the bridge document here

4. P20 Governance: A Composite Solution to the Thorniest Issues
Turf
Trust
Technical Issues
Time
Stock photo. Release for web use of this photo on file

5. WHO is Charged with These Decisions in Your State
WHO is Charged with These Decisions in Your State? Policymakers or IT/data staff?
Turf
Linking and sharing data across agencies
Should we use NSC data or link our state K-12 and postsecondary systems?
Trust
P20W data access and use
Who will have access to linked data and for what purpose?
Technical
Common data standards
How should we balance efficiency and quality with cost?
Time
Commitment of staff and resources
Who will actually implement and pay for this work?

6. Establishing the RIGHT Structure with the RIGHT People
“Consider data governance an education policy-led, rather than an IT-led, initiative.”
Source: NCES, P20W Data Governance: Tips from the States

7. Possible Charges for A P20W Data Governing Board
Development of a Common Identification System across agencies for individuals and organizations
Coordination and prioritization with the P20 council of policy and research questions to be answered for legislators, agencies, and the public
Coordination of research with an established collaborative of research institutions
Development, in collaboration with other organizations, provisioning of information in clear and informative formats for use by policymakers, agencies, institutions, and the public
Development of processes to collaborate, communicate, and share data to support analysis by supporting institutions, including, but not limited to, research institutions and non-profit organizations including recommendations for improving the access and efficiency of data requests
Management of data requests that require cross agency data including a process for identifying such requests
Development of a catalog of data elements and a data model that captures which data is shared between agencies
Development of the capacity to store, manage, and update data that has been retrieved from agencies on an ongoing basis including a repository that provides effective access to the shared data model
Recommendations to expand data collection and shared data model based on data requests and data availability
Develop security, privacy, quality and reliability standards
Recommendations for staffing and budgeting necessary to support these charges
Source: Advance Illinois

8. A Sample of Maryland’s Policy Questions
Can the question be answered with the LDS as it is currently configured
Comments
Yes No
Are students academically prepared to enter college and complete their programs in a timely manner? X
The question can be answered if an academically prepared student is defined as one who meets the University System of Maryland’s admissions standards, and if high school-level transcript data are available in the LDS.
What percentage of Maryland high school graduates entering college are required to take developmental courses and in what content areas?
How does performance in developmental course work (i.e., persistence and transfer/graduation) vary among students of different backgrounds?
No. This information is only available for recent high school graduates.
Which students are being lost in the transition between community colleges and 4-year institutions? ?
The term “lost in transition” needs to be clearly defined.
Are graduates of Maryland colleges successful in the workforce?
Further clarification is needed including defining the term “workforce success.”

9. Is the Data Actionable? Hawaii’s High School Feedback Report

10. DRAFT Recommendations for States
Establish a P20W governance body with the right STRUCTURE
Select the right PEOPLE to lead the P20W governing body
Ensure the P20W governing body has the AUTHORITY to make the necessary decisions and that the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and complement, not compete, with other governing bodies
Ensure your P20W governance structure is SUSTAINABLE to ensure continuity of the state’s vision for the data system to meet stakeholder needs

11. Establishing Data Governance: State Examples
Maryland
MD SB 275 Establishing Longitudinal Data System and Data Governance Board
New Mexico
NM, Legislation, Bill H.B. 70a
Minnesota
MN, Minnesota P-20 Statewide Longitudinal Education Data System Charter
Minnesota P20 Education Partnership Bylaws and Resolution
Linking and Sharing Data: Governance Structures for Longitudinal Data Systems, Alice Seagren (MN)
Washington
Education Research and Data Center

12. Illinois: Quick snapshot of today
The stage is set: actively planning a formal data governance structure
P20 Council established in 2009
Longitudinal Data System goes online in 2012
Launching several high profile initiatives that are based on application of longitudinal data
Formalizing our data governance out of necessity. “We’ve gotten this far being scrappy, but that’s not sustainable.”

13. Illinois: In the past Years ago, we didn’t know what we didn’t know
P20W has been a big priority of current administration
P20 Council legislated in 2009
Greater focus on P20W issues and initiatives
LDS development has extended this P20W focus into the data world and has revealed many shortcomings

14. Challenges: LDS Development
Multiple LDS initiatives are currently ongoing, developing a “federated model,” but the required level of coordination is impossible with no central vision or executive leadership
K12, postsecondary, early childhood, workforce and human services all developing repositories and systems using different structures and standards. 
Data exchange and data linking challenging – at present the mechanisms to bring data together are defined on an ad hoc basis and are not repeatable.
Common Identifier Initiative and other ad hoc efforts to exchange data are illustrative of the shortcomings of the current federated approach.
This approach is not mature; the ability to bring data together to inform policy and practice is not present with this architecture but there’s no central leadership to address that.

15. Challenges: Other Initiatives
Illinois Shared Learning Environment (ISLE) will extend the Shared Learning Collaborative capabilities across P20W
Makes data useful and sends it back to the front lines to inform PRACTICE, not just policy
Brings together multi-agency data for access by many stakeholders and third parties - complicated
Illinois Collaborative for Education Policy Research (ICEPR) will be research arm of P20W effort; will require ease and flexibility of access to multi-agency data

16. Case Study: High School to College Success Report
Requires linking data from ISBE, ICCB, IBHE, IHEC and ACT
Report generated by ACT vendor
Based on matching SSNs, data matching rate is low and declining
Data is destroyed after report is generated – one time shot
Concerns
Lack of central entity or resources to track and manage multi-agency data requests
Lack of procedures, standards for bringing multi-agency data sets together, ensuring security of data
Sustainability of the processes
Establishing repositories for multi-agency data sets
Ability to fully address policy questions is limited without additional governance structure
Ability to fully meet expectations for ILDS

17. Vision
To assure that key policy decisions, research questions, program evaluations, and other applications are based on comprehensive, high quality data from birth through career development, the LDS governance structure will provide coordinated and timely access to cross-agency data in a consistent, transparent, usable and secure manner.
This vision clearly addresses the needs identified through discussions with agencies and data users

18. Concerns
The great debate: Why create an entirely new layer of bureaucracy when we can just put MOUs in place?
We already have MOUs in place – they haven’t fixed anything
Is this new and tangential to existing LDS efforts?
No, this formalizes what we have been doing ad hoc and pulls the separate efforts into one coordinated initiative
Will this still be a Federated model?
Yes, we still intend to have multiple data systems – but even a federated model requires some centralized services
Does this reduce agency ownership of their data?
No, data usage will still be covered by data sharing agreements, but this provides a forum to more readily discuss data sharing needs

19. DRAFT Recommendations for States
Illinois Current Progress
Establish a P20W governance body with the right STRUCTURE
Select the right PEOPLE to lead the P20W governing body
Ensure the P20W governing body has the AUTHORITY to make the necessary decisions and that the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and complement, not compete, with other governing bodies
Ensure your P20W governance structure is SUSTAINABLE to ensure continuity of the state’s vision for the data system to meet stakeholder needs
Proposed structure is being evaluated by working group that includes P20 Council, LDS DAC, Governor’s Office and Legislators
Structure includes direct involvement by agency heads or direct representative
New structure will probably be put into place by Legislation or Executive Order as options; either will ensure appropriate authority but have different implications on long-term sustainability