1 / 61

Quality Data for Decision Making

libitha
Télécharger la présentation

Quality Data for Decision Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    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 Institutions Top 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 STUDENTS Full-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. REMEDIATION Cont. 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 Education YUHSD 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 Education AWCs 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 Education Fall 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 Education First 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

More Related