Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article investigates the utility and availability of college data to evaluate the impact of high school interventions. It reports results of a pilot study that collected information about the college experiences of graduates from four high schools in the northeast United States. Using these results as a lens, the article examines what information is available from Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS). It identifies the contrary interactions of the development of SLDS and federal law. The article reviews the legal and practical constraints on improving the national data system, as well as possible policy changes that might improve the data environment.

Keywords

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Federal Education Policy State Education Policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/readyornot

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2012). College’s concerted campaign for ignorance. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Concerted-Campaign/136303/

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2013). Obama plan to tie student aid to college ratings draws mixed reviews. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Proposes-Tying-Federal/141229/

College Board. (2006). College board standards for college success: Mathematics and Statistics. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/association/academic/mathematics-statistics_cbscs.pdf

College Board. (2011). Trends in college pricing. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/College_Pricing_2011.pdf

Conley

D. T.

(2007). The prepared graduate: The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 23-29.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Mission statement. Available from http://www.corestandards.org

Coxford

A. F.

Fey

J. T.

Hirsch

C. R.

Schoen

H. L.

Burill

Hart

E. W.

. . .Walker

R. K.

(1998-2001). Contemporary mathematics in context: A unified approach, courses 1-3. Columbus, OH: Glencoe.

10.

Dougherty

Mellor

Jian

(2005). The relationship between advanced placement and college graduation (2005 AP Studies Series, Report 1). Austin, TX: National Center for Educational Accountability. Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/the-relationship-between-ap-and-college-graduation.pdf

11.

Evans

B. J.

(2015). College admission testing: An Ohio perspective. In Stead

(Ed.), International Perspectives on Higher Education Admission Policy: A reader (pp.171-180). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

12.

Felner

Bolton

Seitsinger

Brand

Burns

(2008). Creating a statewide educational data system for accountability and improvement: A comprehensive information and assessment system for making evidence-based change at school, district and policy levels. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 235-256.

13.

Fendel

Resek

Fraser

Alper

(1997). Interactive mathematics program, books 1-4. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

14.

Forte

(2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45, 76-88.

15.

Gallegos

(1994). Meta-evaluation of school evaluation models. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 41-54.

16.

Garcia

T. I.

L’Orange

H. P.

(2010). Strong foundations: The state of state postsecondary data systems. Boulder, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/sspds/StrongFoundations_Full.pdf

17.

Gibson

(2011). TrustEd: A dual-database trusted broker system for multi-agency data. Conway: Arkansas Research Center. Retrieved from http://arc.arkansas.gov/arc/resources/publications/TrustEdFramework.pdf

18.

Hill

Parker

(2006). A study of Core-Plus students attending Michigan State University. American Mathematical Monthly, 113, 905-921.

19.

Huntley

M. A.

Rasmussen

C. L.

Villarubi

R. S.

Sangtong

Fey

J. T.

(2000). Effects of standards-based mathematics education: A study of the Core-Plus Mathematics Project algebra and functions strand. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 328-361.

20.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). About IES: Connecting research, policy and practice. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/

21.

Kramer

Bernotsky

Wolff

Manderachi

(2010). Investigating students’ transition from high school to college: How can we best collect the data? Denver, Colorado: Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

22.

Kramer

S. L.

Osgood

Bernotsky

Wolff

(2011). Evaluating high school programs’ effects on college success: Comparing the accuracy of data provided by surveys to the accuracy of data provided by student transcripts. Lausanne, Switzerland: Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the European Survey Research Association.

23.

Krier

(2009). Summary of findings re: Contacting registrars. Unpublished manuscript. Technical Report to National Science Foundation for Award ID 0732161

24.

Kuncel

N. R.

Crede’

Thomas

L. L.

(2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63-82.

25.

Lane

(2012). Mass math plus science initiative: Phase 1 evaluation report. Catonsville, MD: Institute for Strategic Leadership and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.massinsight.org/mmsi/impact/phase-1-evaluation-report/

26.

Lederman

(2007, February 12). Another way on unit records. Inside Higher Ed. Available from www.insidehighered.com

27.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.

28.

Louis

Febey

Schroeder

(2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012a). Common education data standards: CEDS 101. Retrieved July 30, 2012 from https://ceds.ed.gov/pdf/ceds-101.pdf

30.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012b). Table 214. In Digest of education statistics, 2011.Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 30, 2012 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011015

31.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/improving-college-completion-reforming-remedial.aspx

32.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

33.

Ruben

B. D.

Louis

Sandmeyer

Russ

Smulowitz

Immordino

(2008). Assessing the impact of the Spellings Commission: The message, the messenger, and the dynamics of change in higher education. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/documents/business_topics/full%20study.pdf

34.

Schoen

Hirsch

(2003). The Core-Plus Mathematics Project: Perspectives and student achievement (pp. 311-344). In Senk

S. L.

Thompson

D. R.

(Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Slavin

(2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21.

36.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Educational attainment in the United States (2009). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf

37.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf

38.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Guidance on the state fiscal stabilization fund program.Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/guidance.pdf

39.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009b, November 12). State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program. Federal Register, 74(217), 58436-58525.

40.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). The Blueprint for Reform. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

41.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program and Other Formula Grant Programs. Federal Register, 76(185), 59074-59084.

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012, January 31). Final revisions to certain data collection and reporting requirements, final priority; State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program and Discretionary and Other Formula Grant Programs. Federal Register, 77(20), 4663-4674.

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). SLDS 101. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/SLDS_PPT.asp

44.

H.-H.

(2000). Review of the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/IMP2.pdf

45.

Wylie

Wyatt

Camara

W. J.

(2010). The development of a multi-dimensional college readiness index. New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/10b_2084_DevMultiDimenRR_WEB_100618.pdf

Evaluating College Readiness

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References