2. Toward a Maryland K- 16 Data Network Michael J. Keller Director of Policy Analysis and Research Maryland Higher Education Commission 2003 SHEEO/NCES Network Conference May 15, 2003-Phoenix, AZ

3.  The efforts of States to improve the performance of students and schools, from pre- kindergarten to college, are hampered by the lack of shared access to data from the different components of the educational system.

4.  Large quantities of data are collected in the nooks and crannies of this system.  But the information is often not accessible in a manner needed to do the type of analyses that would be most valuable to key constituencies.

5. Examples:  High school students and their parents who want to know how to maximize the prospects for success in college.  Teachers who need to assess the needs of students entering their classrooms and the performance of those from different backgrounds.  Principals who desire reliable tools for the evaluation of teachers.  Superintendents who want to learn why some schools do well and others do not.  Researchers who seek to understand the impact which factors at the various levels of education have on student achievement.  Politicians who need to make decisions on the allocation of resources and state officials who must design meaningful accountability systems.

6. Southern Regional Education Board in Goals for Education: Challenge to Lead identified the characteristics of states that place a high priority on an education system of schools, colleges and universities. One of these:  “Data systems-on students and teachers, on school and colleges-are linked throughout the education system.”

7.  The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K-16 has set as one of its four priorities for this year an examination of how current data bases in the State can be enhanced to share information across sectors of education.  The K-16 Leadership Council has named a task force to explore ways of improving the alignment of K-16 educational statistics for the purpose of conducting more extensive and joint analyses of policy relevant data.

8.  The vision that has emerged from the task force is the establishment of a Maryland Education Data Network.  “Network” implies that the task force’s objectives will be to link, integrate and make more broadly useable the stores of data that are in the custody of numerous parties in the State.  Not intended: The creation of a single database or a data warehouse managed by one agency.

9.  The heart of this Network would be a single comprehensive electronically- accessible record which accompanies the individual student throughout his or her educational career.  The record would begin with the student’s first enrollment in an educational institution-kindergarten or pre- kindergarten--and would collect information on academic progress and performance for as long as he or she were in some type of formal schooling.

10.  Today, most student records are considered the property of one educational institution.  As a student moves through the educational system, the old record remains with the sending institution with selected parts being transmitted to the receiving institution, usually in the form of a paper transcript.  This approach is outmoded and fails to forward information that could be important in measuring a student’s educational progress.

11.  Joining the student record would a parallel, comprehensive teacher record that would include all relevant education-and performance-related career factors.  The extent to which there is linkage between the student and teacher records would constitute the essence of the Network.  Example: student A has been in the classes of teachers B and C and professors D and E.  The Network would, at least in theory, have the capacity of tracking, aggregating and making available for analysis data for all possible combinations of students and teachers.

12. Examples of the kinds of research that could be undertaken:  A college admissions officer could examine certain aspects of student academic performance in making selection decisions.  A principal could evaluate teachers on the basis of the academic progress made by their students over a series of classes.  A state education agency could study the comparative effectiveness of schools in reducing the achievement gap of students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

13. Examples of the kinds of research that could be undertaken: cont.  A researcher could look at the benefit of various types of curricula, controlling for school size or student composition.  A higher education board could track the long-term graduation rates of college students based on detailed course-taking patterns and scholastic outcomes in high school.

14. The Maryland Education Data Network Task Force has initiated its work by forming two subgroups:  The “presents” group  The “futures” group

15.  The “presents” group will be responsible for preparing an inventory of information related to student achievement in K-12 and postsecondary education that currently exists in various sources and databases in Maryland.  This will cover information that would be useful in measuring the educational progress of students, instructional quality and effectiveness, and equity of access of students to instruction.  In deciding whether or not to include a particular data element, this question will be asked: Will the information be useful in addressing policy issues related to closing the achievement gap among students and improving the quality of education?

16.  The “presents” group will check into data housed at o State and local government agencies o Schools and school system o Colleges, universities and career schools and their boards and associations  In addition to cataloging the kind of information available, it will determine o How and where it is stored o Whether it is available longitudinally o Whether it is in unit record format and thus connectable to other data

17.  The “futures” group will identify the type of information that would be desirable for inclusion in the Network consistent with the needs of its clients.  This group has been encouraged to think broadly and conceptually without regard for what may or may not currently be available.  This group will be guided and limited by the question, What kind of education information infrastructure is required to meet the needs of students, parents, teachers, principals and superintendents, university admissions officials, college instructors, researchers, education policy makers, and legislators?

18. Obstacles and issues related to the creation of the Network to be addressed by the Task Force:  Privacy and security in the management and use of student records- the biggest potential roadblock to the Network. o Federal privacy laws o The selection of a common identifier for linking records  Social Security number-would have to be encrypted to relieve concerns about identity theft  A new unique code-would be difficult to get agreement from all potential users.

19. Other issues and obstacles:  Development of commonly agreed standards and definitions. o Resistance to standardization is strong in education, with its traditions of institutional and local prerogatives. o Achieving commonality in such areas as student grading systems, course titles, and certification examinations will be challenging.  Funding  Technology needs  Assurance of data quality  Prioritizing the needs of the users of the Network.

20. Why the stumbling blocks can be overcome this time: There is momentum across the country to raise the achievement level of students. This is occurring in an environment that stresses accountability throughout K-16 education. A mechanism for tracking student progress across educational jurisdictions is crucial. The Maryland Education Data Network provides a blueprint for accommodating this task.