Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay
Lessons in higher education: What California can learn
Keeping California public university options open
Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away
The debt to degree connection
College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life
In the past few weeks, EdSource has reported that the California Department of Education is attempting to silence researchers to prevent them from testifying as expert witnesses in a case against the agency. The department, as a condition of providing nonpublic data to researchers, requires them to sign a contract stating they cannot participate in litigation against the department. CDE is enforcing this clause against two researchers asked to testify in a case brought by students against the department, despite the fact that neither researcher was using CDE’s nonpublic data as a basis for their testimony.
While it’s reasonable to disagree, the public deserves to hear from experts who spend their lives researching education. Threatening to revoke future data access is politics, not evidence-based policymaking. Not only does this set a dangerous precedent of restricting who can receive access to data — but it also rings of a preference for sharing data only with people who have proven to be friends of CDE and an avoidance of sharing data with anyone who might question (and potentially rightfully push on) the way the department is doing things.
Given the work that California has done over the past five years to set the state up to make data more actionable, to make outcomes more transparent, and to really shine a light on what’s working, what’s not, and for whom, this is incredibly disappointing.
As a native Californian and someone who cares deeply about data access and use, I’ve been following California’s work closely. While the state’s cradle-to-career data system is still being built, California got it right with the process it followed to develop its new system and the policies that leaders put in place to ensure transparency and inclusiveness in decision-making. Not only did California make its priorities known by passing two laws to make the system a reality, but the structure of the data system’s governance board prioritizes transparency by creating a diverse group of board members who have the authority to make decisions. Unlike most other states, California’s governing board isn’t just agency heads, it includes eight members of the public who are there to push agency leaders as they make decisions.
The department can learn from this approach. The data sitting in CDE belongs to taxpayers — not any person within the agency. And Californians — including researchers — deserve access to it.
California took two giant leaps forward with its investment in the cradle-to-career data system and the policies that the state put in place to make that system a reality, but this is a step back. It’s also overwhelming proof that the inclusive, transparent way that California has committed to the cradle-to-career data system model with a governing board that represents both agency leadership and the public is right — and that putting politics above government transparency isn’t the right decision. Agencies led by political actors cannot determine policy alone with no formal role for anyone else besides that political leader.
State agencies like the California Department of Education have the responsibility to construct parameters around data access and use that align with state priorities — including the transparency that California has prioritized in its data governance body—and to center best practices to protect student privacy. But to restrict researchers from speaking out about the state with the threat to be put on an “enemies of the state” list is a dangerous precedent. Researchers could see California as a hostile place to request data and conduct research to develop solutions for students and their families. If this happens, the people who stand to lose are students — and as always, the most vulnerable populations who are in need of those solutions.
Governor Newsom and members of the California Legislature made it clear when they passed and signed into law the California Cradle-to-Career Data System Act that access for students, families, educators, researchers and the public was a priority. CDE’s actions are inconsistent with these values. State agencies that contribute data to the state’s system would do well to adopt a similar approach to granting access to agency-level data. Gatekeeping data and shutting out those who don’t comply with the agency’s politics is not the answer.
California has much to be proud of when it comes to enabling data access. States should look to the policies put in place to create California’s cradle-to-career data system and emulate them. But as the field continues to celebrate California’s other work, this isn’t something to celebrate.
•••
Paige Kowalski is executive vice president of the Data Quality Campaign, a nonprofit that advocates to ensure that data works for everyone navigating their education and workforce journeys.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. Commentaries published on EdSource represent diverse viewpoints about California’s public education systems. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
)
)
)
Panelists discussed dual admission as a solution for easing the longstanding challenges in California’s transfer system.
A grassroots campaign recalled two members of the Orange Unified School District in an election that cost more than half a million dollars.
Legislation that would remove one of the last tests teachers are required to take to earn a credential in California passed the Senate Education Committee.
Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track and at a lower pay rate, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
Comments (1)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Jeff Camp 9 months ago9 months ago
I wish I shared the author’s enthusiasm about the state’s progress in advancing data quality, freshness and transparency. A delay of 2-4 years remains the standard for much useful data. I think the system would be healthier with mandatory early official estimates with deadlines for subsequent revision. This is the practice in much business and economic reporting, where the accounting challenges are much more complex.