For California LEAs, data is also used as an accountability measure to determine performance in a number of areas. A component of CSBA’s SOS for Student Achievement campaign — which is calling for the end of a fragmented system and the creation of a state-level operations and support plan to address achievement gaps and provide necessary supports for LEAs that meet their needs — is tackling the state accountability gap that exists.

For too long, when confronted with subpar and stagnant data around student performance, there has often been a rush to identify shortcomings in LEAs without considering those of the system that governs them and is tasked with facilitating their success.

Audits, evaluations and public dashboards such as the California School Dashboard function as report cards for school districts and COEs but there is no comparable standard to assess the state’s work related to education.

“Our campaign is very focused on achievement gaps and the state’s role in providing the support locally for LEAs to be able to address those gaps, and the fact that the state does not have a statewide support and operations plan to guide their policymaking,” said CSBA Principal Research Manager Jeremy Anderson, who serves as lead on the initiative. “What we really believe is that data should be driving a lot of the decisions being made across state agencies, just like it does at the local level.

“Achievement gaps in particular are an area where we would like the state to focus more on because achievement gaps statewide are stark and persistent. You can go back to the early 1990s and the earliest days of state testing and see that many of those gaps that you saw then are still around now. And so, there is this urgent sense of focus on developing a state-level plan,” Anderson continued. “We’ve had a litany of plans focused on LEAs and one-off programs, but we’ve not looked at statewide operations, asked them to develop that same focus and to be data-driven in their programmatic legislation and policymaking in the way that we’ve asked our LEAs to do.”

Anderson added that when attempting to determine if a state program is having the intended impact, there typically isn’t a clear mechanism of evaluation unless it comes from third-party researchers.

Comparing this to the local level, Anderson explained that staff regularly look at data “to see if the programs they are putting into place are having an impact. They are then informing their administration who then makes recommendations to the board on the programs that they would like to see continued, ones that they may need to see tweaked, and what tools or resources they need to get the intended outcomes out of different programs.”

CSBA-sponsored legislation introduced this year intends to establish reciprocal accountability between the state and LEAs; develop a state-level operations and support plan with clear goals and measurable benchmarks for how the state will support — not dictate to — LEAs in boosting student achievement; and an evaluation process to determine whether state-level programs are producing the desired outcomes and provide opportunities for course correction.

Anderson said that key to all this is having transparent and easily accessible results for the public.

While CSBA keeps its sights set on state-level change, trustees can look to many resources, and each other, to further their understanding of effective data practices.

Anderson explained that LEAs get and utilize data in various ways, noting the value of timely data.

Student achievement data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), for example, comes from the state. Though the test is administered in the spring, LEAs don’t typically get results until late summer or early fall before a public release occurs in October.

“It takes a bit of time for the turnaround for the state to get that data to LEAs, which is really important for them because they’re in the midst of making budgetary and programmatic decisions at the board level,” Anderson said. “Knowing where they need to be focused on in relation to that data is essential.”

Local processes are also in place to collect data and teachers are continuously accumulating real-time insights from local assessments and other classroom-level activities.

“That data informs the day-to-day operations of schools. It informs how they are interacting with the community and with parents and keeping them abreast of their students’ outcomes and performance,” Anderson said. “While that data is really important, our campaign to close the state accountability gap looks at the state-level data because that’s the data that is used to hold districts accountable and designate them for differentiated assistance and other interventions. Getting that data quicker could really help LEAs make better decisions on their budgets and programming at the local level.”

Describing data as a tool to both identify areas of opportunity and celebrate accomplishments, he added that governance team members should be interacting with data fairly regularly to have a sense of how all students are progressing.

“It’s critical for board members to be asking questions around disaggregated data to understand how different student groups are doing and not just the district as a whole,” Anderson said. “If you don’t disaggregate the data, it might hide potential issues that you want to deal with early on. And the earlier you can see a trend, the faster you can enact an intervention to counter it.”

In January, CSBA’s Research and Education Policy Development Department published the fact sheet “How to Access Publicly Available and Reliable Data as a Board Member” (csba.pub/accessing-data) to help trustees access foundational data needed to support and guide their policies, funding allocations and more.

As members of a governance team, having access to up-to-date data is crucial for making informed and impactful decisions, and while LEA staff will likely have the most nuanced and granular data, there is a wealth of free data resources about LEAs that are accessible 24/7, Anderson said. From DataQuest to the California School Dashboard, Ed-Data and more, the fact sheet breaks down how each resource can be utilized, the limitations of each and where the future of state data collection is headed with the launch of the Cradle-to-Career Data System.

“We want school board members to realize that oftentimes, they don’t have to wait until their next school board meeting to get a question answered around data,” Anderson said, adding that having more time to explore data can allow board members to inquire with staff about local trends beyond during formal presentations.

He pointed out that data can only tell you what is happening but not why, “and that’s where that bridge between gathering information ahead of time and working with staff happens because staff and the administration and teachers at the local level have a better feel for what is happening and why it’s happening.”

In the Central Valley, Porterville USD’s data model supports a districtwide culture of continuous improvement that advances equity, agency and student achievement. Elements such as dashboards, collaborative assessments and professional learning allow educators and students to engage with real-time data and set goals, guide instruction and acknowledge growth.

The district’s Director of Curriculum and Instructional Technology Andrew Woodley said that while test scores or other metrics provide quantitative data, qualitative data from exercises like empathy interviews with students can provide a fuller picture of what they may be struggling with academically or otherwise that is affecting their performance. With that input, teachers can make adjustments to lessons. Woodley said that having data allows for more frequent conversations about what is happening in the district and earlier intervention.

Overall, he said that teachers feel the information helps them approach their classes with more intention and students are empowered to take ownership of their performance and advocate for the supports they need.

He explained that the development of a strong data system started about six years ago and buy-in and appreciation has increased over time, along with student growth. From performance on assessments to attendance, grades, A-G readiness, social-emotional learning screeners and more, the model houses myriad data.

Assessment Data and Analytics Coordinator Jennifer Garcia reiterated the importance of LEAs tracking internal data in a way that meets local context, offers a holistic view of students and helps staff with data literacy. “That’s a big helper for these leaders who might be a little bit reluctant in looking at the data and not too sure about how to interpret a lot of those things,” Garcia said.

In the Bay Area, Livermore Valley Joint USD Director of Assessment and Accountability Matthew Hart explained that the district’s Math Data Protocol — launched in 2022 to address stagnant math proficiency in grades 6–12 by centering teachers in a collaborative, data-driven process — was created in response to a need to provide educators with training and skill development to analyze data on the math final across secondary classrooms.

By way of common assessments, structured analysis and shared ownership, participating teachers identify gaps and improve instruction to fuel continuous growth — driving equity, achievement and long-term success for students.

All teachers in Math 6, Math 7, Math 8, Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II participate in the four-part protocol with a team at their own school, Hart said. First, teachers examine overall achievement levels at their school as well as by student group, then they disaggregate the data by standard or learning target with attention to the top- and bottom-three performing standards.

Next, they engage in item analysis, looking at the questions students most commonly answer incorrectly with a focus on trends that may indicate what led students to their conclusions.

“In each part, we ask teachers to try to state specifically what the information shows us about what students know and what students don’t know,” Hart said.

Finally, they create an action plan to address issues and predict what changes they expect to see, which is revisited in subsequent years to see if actions led to the anticipated results.

Since implementation, the district has “seen double-digit percentage increases in proficiency on the math final at every level, with especially large gains in middle school,” Hart said. Other benefits have included more students being A-G compliant and some improvement in CAASPP math scores.

Hart offered his opinion on why it’s important that LEA leaders use data to guide their decisions. “It’s only fair that new initiatives are started with an agreement ahead of time about what metrics will be used to evaluate what works and what doesn’t. Sometimes we try things but they don’t work,” he said. “That kind of experimentation is okay, but if we haven’t grounded the initiative in data at the outset, then that can lead to initiatives running along without really supporting students. Then those initiatives take time away from other, more effective measures and that all leads to initiative fatigue.

“Everything we do should be about improving our educational environment for students. We need to be honest about judging educational programs and hold them to a high standard. Utilizing data — whether it’s objective or subjective, numerical or anecdotal — is really the only way to check and make sure that we are doing the best we can for our students.”

CSBA’s Anderson noted how Hart’s philosophy can be applied at the state-level. “This local process of honestly assessing educational programs using a data-driven process is one that we want the state to adopt for their programs and policymaking,” Anderson concluded. “That would be an essential aspect of an aligned, focused state-level operations and support plan.”