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.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/readyornot
EvansB. J. (2015). College admission testing: An Ohio perspective. In SteadV. (Ed.), International Perspectives on Higher Education Admission Policy: A reader (pp.171-180). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
12.
FelnerR.BoltonN.SeitsingerA.BrandS.BurnsA. (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.
ForteE. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45, 76-88.
15.
GallegosA. (1994). Meta-evaluation of school evaluation models. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 41-54.
16.
GarciaT. I.L’OrangeH. 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
HillR.ParkerT. (2006). A study of Core-Plus students attending Michigan State University. American Mathematical Monthly, 113, 905-921.
19.
HuntleyM. A.RasmussenC. L.VillarubiR. S.SangtongJ.FeyJ. 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.
KramerS.BernotskyL.WolffE.ManderachiT. (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.
KramerS. L.OsgoodJ.BernotskyL.WolffE. (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.
KrierK. (2009). Summary of findings re: Contacting registrars. Unpublished manuscript. Technical Report to National Science Foundation for Award ID 0732161
24.
KuncelN. R.Crede’M.ThomasL. 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.
LedermanD. (2007, February12). Another way on unit records. Inside Higher Ed. Available from www.insidehighered.com
27.
LittleR. J. A.RubinD. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.
28.
LouisS.FebeyK.SchroederR. (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
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
33.
RubenB. D.LouisL.SandmeyerL.RussT.SmulowitzS.ImmordinoK. (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.
SchoenH.HirschC. (2003). The Core-Plus Mathematics Project: Perspectives and student achievement (pp. 311-344). In SenkS. L.ThompsonD. R. (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes?Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
SlavinR. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21.
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, January31). 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.
