The Promise of Seamless Transitions Hinges on Greater Data Capacity

We know that states are collecting some data on high school pathways, but it tends to be limited to career and technical education (CTE) concentrator and completion data, which only accounts for a small proportion of students who are actively participating in pathways programming, and might miss experiences like dual credit and work-based learning. States also track college and career transitions, including enrollment, persistence, completion, and employment in good jobs. But in order to draw a line of coherence through all of those stats, there is a level of data collection and sharing that, quite frankly, most states don’t yet do. 

So, even states who are committed to data alignment in support of more seamless transitions for students sometimes struggle due to the lack of data available, timing of when data is available or released, and a lack of connection between the institutions that are collecting them. 

Why does this matter?

As state leaders focus on improving seamless postsecondary transitions, limited data collection and capacity to share data efficiently across systems and leverage data insights  (both at state and local levels) threaten to upend momentum and progress. Oftentimes, inefficient or ineffective data sharing can hinder the programmatic decision-making necessary to remove barriers and improve student outcomes.

But, with the right partners, a unified vision, and a plan for quality data collection, sharing, and use, the national movement around college and career pathways has the potential to create seamless transitions for students from high school to college, employment, and beyond.

Recently, ESG has been deeply engaged in data capacity support, providing strategic and technical assistance to two large initiatives focused on this particular problem of practice: The LEAP (Leading Educational Acceleration through Personalization) grant supported pilots with five north Texas districts who serve as a representative sample of Texas districts in terms of size and structure; and Launch: Equitable & Accelerated Pathways for All, a national college and career pathways initiative that strives for every learner to have access to and succeed in high-quality and equitable pathways across fourteen states. Through this work, we’ve learned a lot about the challenges between data collection, sharing, and use at the state and local levels. 

What challenges exist to aligned data systems?

• Fragmented Data Collection: High-quality pathways require that K-12, postsecondary, and workforce exist as a continuum, enabling students to move seamlessly to and through these systems. Even within Launch—which to be clear, is composed of states that are leading in this particular area—states have limited capacity to follow students across systems to determine whether they are continuing and completing the same pathway they began in high school. 
• Limited Vision and Prioritization of Data: State leaders who are building a sophisticated, responsive data system need to be thinking about who needs this data, where it should live, and how and how often it should be accessed so that it can be used to inform changes to policies, program design elements, and implementation efforts targeted at supporting students who need it most.
• Capability, Capacity, and Ownership: Participation in work-based learning and college and career advising are important components of a student’s pathway, providing them the necessary career development and guidance to make important education and career decisions; but states aren’t always collecting data on these at the same level as course enrollment and completion. And often, what data states do collect isn’t being distilled into usable insights and guidance that districts can leverage to improve their programs. In some cases, districts are actually collecting more and better data on these elements because they are implementing these programs, but they may not have the sophistication or capacity to leverage that data fully for programmatic improvement decision making.
• Missed Opportunities: Data exists within silos, mostly serving the compliance reporting needs of specific sectors and levels of government (e.g. Perkins V, WIOA, ESSA). However, many of the pressing questions pathways systems are looking to address span across sectors. Questions such as ‘What are the postsecondary and workforce outcomes of students on pathways?’ or ‘Which credentials obtained in high school lead to positive career outcomes for students?” require sectors to share data across agency boundaries. 

What can be done to address these challenges?

We recommend that investments be made to support data system improvements, including the collection and alignment of indicators that reveal how different student groups move between systems, stronger governance structures that allow for continuous improvement and meaningful data sharing and access, data tools that empower users to dive deeper into indicators and review equity gaps in student performance.  Specifically, equity-focused student group target setting and program improvements will not be possible without higher quality data systems and processes. 

Having the data and interoperability is important, but without a strong data culture at both the state and local levels, it is unlikely that any data sharing initiative will be sustainable long term. In order to build and strengthen this critical structure, ESG recommends state leaders focus on the following areas: 

1. Establish a vision and aligned priorities for data collection and use. 
   • State leaders should clearly articulate the vision and priorities for their data system, and “connect the dots” on how these systems are aligned with agency priorities and initiatives. States should also make trend data, by metric and student group, available annually to districts.
2. Design and build technical infrastructure that empowers all education stakeholders to take action. 
   • State leaders should identify college and career pathway data that is high-priority for data collection, make the definitions clear, make it clear how state systems collect and report on this data, and make sure it’s reporting back in a timely way. 
3. Create support infrastructure to strengthen implementation.  
   • State leaders should ensure state goals, incentives, and accountability metrics are clearly communicated, and expand tools and resources and technical assistance to support districts in building capacity for implementation, and structures for sustainability. 
4. Support the capacity building efforts of districts and schools. 
   • The goal is to ensure all users of data are aware of tools available and their role in data-informed decisionmaking. State leaders can advocate for—and allocate funds to—district and school level staff to establish roles, responsibilities, and procedures for collecting data, maintaining data systems, and leveraging the findings for decision making in order to ensure that this work is incorporated into broader strategic goals. 

[Resource: District Implementation Status Framework]

States need systemic improvements in data governance, facilitation support to enhance cross-agency collaboration, and evaluation tools to track progress. But it is also critically important that any initiative also address bandwidth issues and the need for continuous training to support sustainability. This necessarily includes advocating for responsive technical assistance, creating formal networks for leaders and power users to share experiences, and improving data processes and reporting from the state to districts.