If it were only that easy.

Nearly two years ago, in A Byte At the Apple Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era, I noted the two decades of struggle California had with developing its school data system. In particular, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System — which was supposed to combine nearly all of the state’s disparate databases — had a particularly troubled history. It took five years for CALPADS to make it from legislative intent to begin full development in 2008. It took another year for the system to become somewhat operational. Even then, it wouldn’t be the fully comprehensive data system that policymakers, parents and schools needed in order to improve the quality of education for their students.

These days, CALPADS is serving no use for anyone at all. Because it has been shut down.  As reported yesterday by John Fensterwald, state Superintendent Jack O’Connell put the system on hiatus after months of glitches — largely caused by state bureaucrats and computer giant IBM (which built out the system on the state’s behalf) — that have made it difficult for school districts to provide and access data. As the state education department’s consultant, Sabot Technologies bluntly points out in its assessment: “the overall [technology] architecture is sound… Instead, Sabot finds that the system implementation includes anomalies, errors and defects throughout.”

Certainly this shutdown will further hinder the delivery of timely data about student progress. But, in all honesty, CALPADS should probably be scrapped altogether. Not because of technical issues, but because the data system is too-narrowly focused on helping the state and school district meet No Child compliance, not on providing useful data. Even if CALPADS was fully operational, schools and researchers still couldn’t  track the long-term performance of individual English Language Learner students (or even determine if they are being fully-mainstreamed into regular classes). The lack of a universal identity number for each student means that student progress can’t be tracked once they enter college; it also means that universities can’t easily access high school student data. Even with the state’s decision to finally integrate CALPADS data with that from the state’s teacher data as part of the effort to tie teacher evaluations to student performance, CALPADS problems means this may not happen for at least another year.

The structural problems underlying CALPADS sheds light on an even bigger problem: An byzantine educational governance system — including a state board of education appointed by the governor, a state education department headed up by an elected superintendent and state universities and community colleges led by different boards at nearly every level — that complicates the development of a fully-unified school data system. Thanks to the sparring matches between each of the politicians and bureaucrats (along with the lack of leadership overall by McConnell and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger), data system integration is even less likely to happen now. Which means that parents can’t get the data they need to make smart decisions in shaping the educational destinies of their children — and teachers can’t use data smartly in shaping their classroom instruction.

This, by the way, isn’t just a California problem. Although Florida has succeeded in developing a truly longitudinal school data system, other states are plagued by similar versions  of California’s unwieldy school governance and paucity of leadership. It will take more than annual surveys by the Data Quality Campaign to shame states into fully addressing those problems. It is another reason why school reformers, grassroots activists (and business groups such as chambers of commerce) must work together to make data quality (and other elements of the reform agenda) a reality.

Photo courtesy of Jose Vilson

What the dropout nation is reading this Monday morning:after the NFL playoffs:

1. John Fensterwald notes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s effort to revamp the state’s teacher seniority rules, which force districts to lay off their younger teachers first without regard to their performance. Fensterwald notes that if Schwarzenegger succeeds, districts will have to step up to the plate and conduct strong rigorous evaluations of teacher performance. Fensterwald also reports that some school districts are getting cold feet about Race to the Top participation.
2. In the Daily News, Tom Carroll takes to task Randi Weingarten’s replacement as head of New York City’s AFT local. Sample quote: “Mulgrew’s point is not actually the advancement of any specific proposal, but rather to throw out there as much mischief as possible to gum up charter schools”.
3. In Dropout Nation comments for Friday’s Read. Southern Education Foundation’s Steve Suitts, who co-wrote the recently-released A New Diverse Majority report, responds to Monise Seward’s criticisms of the study (and of education think tankers in general). He makes some important points about the study and its overall focus. I’m reading the report now for an upcoming Spectator report.
4. Virginia’s Democratic House leader argues that support for charter schools shouldn’t be a “partisan” issue.
5. School administrator Deron Durflinger offers a voucher-like kind of school reform: Give vouchers to parents, who can then directly select the teachers they want to teach their children. Intriguing idea. It could actually lead to greater parental engagement, improve student achievement and make teachers true professionals the way lawyers usually are.
6. Alan Bonsteel of California Parents for Educational Choice offers historical perspective on school choice and the Golden State’s recent school reform efforts.
7. Julia Steiny focuses on a union-sponsored charter school. A school not sponsored by either the NEA or AFT.
8. Kevin Carey observes the financial havoc within California’s university system and takes shots at the University of California’s leaders and wealthy students for their “faux solidarity” with poor collegians.

More opportunities to learn. Photo of St. Anthony Catholic School, Washington, DC

What’s happening in the dropout nation:

- The Foundry takes aim at the opposition among some D.C. politicos to reviving the soon-to-be-shuttered D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Harry Jaffe of the Washington Examiner offered his own thoughts — and gave one of the District’s city councilmen the business earlier this week. Jaffe thinks vouchers “will get funded for another five-year program.”

- Meanwhile, in The Catholic World Report, I take a look at one of the key alternatives to D.C. Public Schools: The Archdiocese of Washington’s Catholic schools. Two years after Archbishop Donald Wuerhl decided to spin off several of its financially-lagging schools and convert them into charters, the proverbial Mother Church is working hard to ensure educational opportunities for its poorest families while fostering additional funding and support from the flock.

- One of the three School Reform Andys (Rotherham, in this case) and Education News Colorado take aim at the Denver school district’s decision to hire a counselor to help school board members with their marriage problems (among other personal issues). Why should the kids — half of whom are likely to never graduate – count for anything? Well, at least it isn’t all going into administrators’ salaries, as it seems to be happening in the case of Indianapolis Public Schools.

- Will the AFT embrace school reform? Based on its New York City affiliate’s response to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Race to the Top efforts, keep the money off the betting line.

- In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prods the Democrat-controlled legislature to take further steps in competing for federal Race to the To funds. The president of the state’s AFT affiliate isn’t thrilled with any of it.

- In research: The Center on Education Policy surveys state government uses of federal stimulus funds for education. The conclusions are mixed.

- Joanne Jacobs takes a look at the Deloitte study on the disconnect between the expectations of high school from parents and children, and the expectations of those who teach the latter. My thoughts will come later.

- In Charleston, S.C., one school superintendent is lambasted for winning an award, one that doesn’t have to do with improving the education of the children in the district’s care.

More news coming the rest of the weekend. Meanwhile, follow Dropout Nation on Twitter for continuous news and updates.

- Parent Revolution’s Ben Austin offers his own reasons why California needs to reform public education and prepare for Race to the Top.

Photo courtesy of the Sacramento Bee

There isn’t a state that isn’t scrambling for federal Race to the Top funding. But California, already mired in battles over spending priorities and bloated budgets, has the most intriguing proposal for using some of those dollars: Finally connecting its sprawl of education data systems into one longitudinal regime.

Earlier this month, state legislators defied the California Teachers Association by eliminating a restriction on tying together the state’s student data and teacher data systems. At the same time, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is championing measures that would create performance pay scales for teachers, essentially tying teacher compensation to student achievement.

Even if all of the measures (which includes eliminating the state-mandated cap on charter schools) get past the CTA and the legislature, California isn’t guaranteed Reach to the Top funds. And even if they get the money, it doesn’t solve the long-term reasons why state school data systems have been anything but: The lack of political will in overcoming the structural obstacles to unifying the systems. Until California addresses how it governs it primary, secondary and post-secondary education systems (including the atrociously balkanized college data systems within the University of California, California State and community college systems) and determines who will actually operate these systems, the funding will simply be spent with little in the way of results.

You can read more in my chapter on school data systems in A Byte At the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era. Eric Osberg also offers his thoughts.

"Play 01" by RiShawn Biddle

What’s going on inside — and outside — the dropout nation.

1. Grad rate inflation: One out of every three California freshmen who made up the state’s original Class of 2007 likely dropped out, according to the state Department of Education. Sure, nine percent of them are considered “completers” or having gained a GED or a certificate of completion of some kind. Either way, the reality is they are dropouts and haven’t gotten a high-quality education. Meanwhile one out of every four students in L.A. Unified’s original class of 2007 failed to graduate. Just 6.5 percent of the original class of 2007 at the Animo charter high school run by Green Dot schools — whose battles with L.A. Unified over the former’s expansion is legendary — dropped out. But for federal reporting purposes, those numbers are meaningless: Based on the federal government’s more-inflated graduation rate calculation, nearly 80 percent of the Class of 2007 graduated. How nice. The Mercury-News has more on this.
2. And for the Hoosiers out there: Here are the graduation rate stats for Indianapolis Public Schools and the state as a whole. Yes, the numbers are les miserables.
3. Meanwhile, Dan Weintraub explains in Education Next how the Terminator was laid low by the state’s powerful teachers’ unions. For Sherman Dorn, an apparent skeptic about the role of teachers’ unions in state policymaking, this may serve as another example of how teachers’ unions skillfully work the corridors of the nation’s statehouses.
4. Is improving the quality of America’s teaching corps the answer to improving education? I say it’s just one of the answers, but not the only one. And Mike Petrilli over at The Education Gadfly argues why it may not be the answer at all.
5. Intra-ed policy dust-up: EdSector’s Kevin Carey and Neil McCluskey at Cato trade shots over the latter’s most recent policy brief. Carey insists that McCluskey exemplifies that there may be a “libertarian conspiracy” to end the nation’s public education system. McCluskey accuses him of engaging in a smear campaign. I’m just going to let these guys argue among themselves.
6. Jay Greene explains why the No Child Left Behind Act isn’t, as opponents of the law claim, an unfunded mandate. Sample quote: “I do not believe that a single tenured teacher out of the more than 3 million teachers currently working in public schools has been fired, experienced a pay-cut, or otherwise been meaningfully sanctioned because of NCLB.” Good point.