On October 19, 2006, HigherEd.org prepared a case studies document to help understand different schools’ approaches to preparing the Beginning Student data which are currently being collected by SCHEV for the TEAL II Teacher Pipeline Application (TPA). There are several key issues which will define what approach will be taken. Recommended effective practices are also suggested. This document may also be viewed in PDF format.

Key Issues

There are a variety of issues which may arise in the process of preparing and submitting TPA data.  These focus on (1) the involvement of institutional research; (2) the involvement of the registrar; (3) the data expertise of the teacher education program or education school; (4) whether there is a separate career switcher program; (5) the utility of the student information system; and (6) how the TPA student population is identified.

(1) IR involvement.  The presence of an institutional research office/function which is already involved in submitting unit record reports to SCHEV. 

If IR is involved, they can cut most of the data needed for the TPA, as they would cut data for the SCHEV Fall Headcount (HC) file, only for a different term and potentially a different group of students.  IR would not be able to determine the population to include in the file and may not have access to certain test scores and/or other data that are maintained locally in the school of education or Career Switcher office.

If IR is not involved, then some other office will need this expertise, either in the school of education, the Career Switcher office, the registrar’s office, or central computing.  One of these offices must already be involved in the SCHEV HC file and this contact should be identified ahead of time.  The previous HC work should be used whenever possible in determining how data are extracted from the student information system (SIS) and how these data are recoded to match SCHEV’s data dictionary. 

In some cases, the IR office is fully capable of compiling the submission, except for the identification of students who are education majors.  For political, workload, or other reasons, the school of education may prepare and submit the file instead.  Since the schools of education are the primary beneficiaries of the TPA data, for accreditation and other reporting purposes, this is appropriate. However, it may take these schools much longer to learn the SCHEV data dictionary structure than if it were done in conjunction with IR.  There will be routine recoding of these data elements which the IR office will have worked out previously, but which will not be understood by schools of education, resulting in increased errors in the editing process.  There could also be potential inconsistencies between students whose data appear in both the TPA and the HC files.

(2) Registrar involvement.  The relationship of the process to the registrar’s enrollment records needs to be maintained.  The registrar should be involved as much as possible in the TPA process as possible.

At some schools, the registrar is involved in IR and submissions of data to SCHEV.  This relationship needs to be preserved and enhanced for the TPA.  Schools should make sure that the registrar’s office is aware of the TPA submission process and, preferably, allowing them to sign off on the data submission.  This is particularly true for the identification of teacher education majors.  Registrars need to know the accurate student major and there should be no discrepancies between the TPA record and the official school record. 

The registrar’s office will, alongside, admissions, be involved in the documentation of test scores needed for TPA.  The registrar will be aware of various coding issues in maintaining the SCHEV data dictionary, as well as efficient and approved methods for cutting extracts of data by census date for a specific population of students. 

(3) Education school data-orientation.  Whether or not there is expertise with data collection and reporting within schools of education, such as for accreditation, Title II, VDOE, and other reports

Schools of education may or may not have the expertise in house necessary to complete Title II, NCATE and TEAC accreditation, SCHEV, VDOE, and other mandated teacher education reports.  If they do, then there will be staff that understand the various types of data which are required, including test scores, demographics, and longitudinal data necessary for calculating completion rates.  These schools are better prepared to do their TPA submission, although they will benefit from assistance from IR in understanding the SCHEV data dictionary so that it is used identically to the HC file to avoid inconsistencies. 

While some schools may feel that they are fully capable, the actual responsibility for reporting may exist with the IR or registrar functions, so the work will need to be coordinated across multiple offices. 

In some cases, teacher education programs fall under different schools besides education; for example with music and dance education majors.  In this case, TPA students may need to be identified by two or more schools and the data collected centrally by one office.  Traditionally, this is the same office that does the HC submission.  Political, workload, schedule, and other concerns may require that the school of education, or arts and sciences if there is no specific school of education, take this responsibility. 

(4) Career switchers. Whether there is a separate career switcher program, responsible for its own data submission or the program is a unit within the school of education

If the career switcher program is provided by the same school or unit that offers other teacher education programs, then there is no duplication of reporting, only different characteristics of programs for these students.  However, as has been suggested, there are two different offices on campus, one for teacher education and one for career switchers, then these either need to be combined or maintained as two separate submissions.  SCHEV has set up the TPA so that it can assign a new UNITID code to institutions which have career switcher programs and need to keep their data separate from the other school’s UNITID.

Either both programs need to prepare and submit their reports separately, including all the process of understanding and implementing the coding structure of the data dictionary, or they need to work together for consistent coding.  Both would benefit from working with the IR office or function that completes the HC file. 

It is expected that the career switcher programs will maintain their data in systems which may not be fully integrated with the institution’s SIS.  The identification of students, the cutting of an extract on a specific census date, and other cleanup processes may be simpler or more complicated because of this different system.  Since there is greater potential for coding errors, it is recommended that all three offices (IR, education, and career switcher) work together to maintain consistency.  The same office may submit both sets of data, combining them into one, or separating them with unique and SCHEV-assigned UNITIDs to identify the institution.

In addition, career switcher programs may not collect all of the data which are needed for the TPA, for example GPA data in teacher education course work that is non-credit.

For career switcher programs that are not part of a postsecondary institution, SCHEV will have provided a unique UNITID login.  The IR and registrar’s office processes described above will not apply.  However, the central office will need to assist with computing services to cut an extract of data from any administrative information systems which are used.  These systems may be PC-based software, such as Microsoft Office applications, or even paper and pencil files.  Regardless, the same issues about identifying eligible students and collecting their data according to the SCHEV data dictionary will apply.  There will be no previous experience with the HC unit record file.  Hopefully, the number of students will be minimal.

(5) Student data systems. The current state of software and data for the student information system; related to how the SIS can be used to cut extracts of data by census date

Schools’ SIS systems will be in various stages of maintenance, upgrade, and migration and will vary by type (Datatel, PeopleSoft, SCT/Banner, Jenzebar, and others).  Each system is used to create data extracts that are used for comparable reporting purposes, such as IPEDS and the SCHEV HC file.  Whoever is responsible for submitting the TPA needs to make sure that the same approach to “cutting” an extract file is used, including which student records to include and how to capture data and values that will be recoded to match the required SCHEV data dictionary structure.

For this reason, the IR office should be involved in the process of cutting an extract, unless the school of education or career switcher program is already familiar with using these types of data.  It should be recognized that the data from an SIS must regularly be recoded and cleaned for reporting and no such SIS will be available to just dump the data into a suitable TPA format.  Offices are encouraged to work together to ensure that the population of students, including how education majors are identified by census date, is the correct. 

(6) TPA student population.  The documentation and definition of education majors by the institution and the education school; used to define the population of beginning teacher education students for TPA

The SIS and IR office/function will not know how to identify majors.  These may only be known officially by the schools or departments offering teacher education programs.  Since the success of graduates is critical to tracking the effectiveness of teacher education programs, it makes sense that schools will only want to include students in the TPA who meet admissions criteria of passing Praxis I or do well enough on the SAT.  Self-identified majors that have not met program eligibility requirements are most probably not yet education majors.   Schools need to be careful about this in their identification process.

Recommended effective practices

While each institution’s approach to submitting TPA data should reflect its unique context and situation, some general guidelines or effective practices emerge from the five issues described above.  These are presented as recommendations to consider.

1. If the school of education is not strong in its staffing for data collection and reporting, the IR office/function should be the primary submitter for TPA.  If the school of education is strong in this regard, it should be the submitter, but should use the IR function to ensure consistency in the application of the SCHEV data dictionary.

2. If both school of education and career switcher programs are offered, they should work together as much as possible given the climate of the institution.  Each should use the IR function to ensure consistency in reporting of the SCHEV data dictionary.  There should be some method for checking against duplication of students across the two submissions. 

3. The registrar’s office should be included in the TPA submission process to avoid inconsistencies in the record, assist in cutting extracts, assist in identifying the correct population of students, and ensure accurate coding according to the data dictionary.  As the official repository of student enrollment data, the registrar’s office should be kept informed about this release of individually-identifiable student records.

4. Schools of education should be very careful in their identification of students, so that only eligible students are included and the school is not held accountable for meeting the needs of students who are not true teacher education majors.

5. The use of extracts from SIS systems should be considered a starting point in the collection process.  Regardless of the office or program making the TPA submission, significant recoding and cleanup of the extract will be needed before it is ready to upload.

6. If there are relatively few teacher education majors, then the HTML forms can be used initially to submit data.

7. If the extract cleanup process is extremely complicated and the submitting office is not familiar with the SCHEV unit record data dictionary, then the HTML forms can be used to submit data.

8. The IR office/function should be given the opportunity to review the submission for any potential inconsistencies with the submission of the SCHEV Fall HC file.  Feedback and cleanup time should be allowed for in this process.

9. If the school of education or career switcher program does not have the skills necessary for recoding extract data, fully understanding the data dictionary, and doing merges, then the HTML forms can be used initially.  Staff may need to assemble written and electronic records for all students and enter their data manually into the TPA to save time.  In the future, personnel with appropriate data skills should be identified to assist in the submission.

10. If the career switcher program is not affiliated with an institution, the learning curve to understanding the SCHEV data dictionary and structure is much higher.  While computing services may be available, with expertise for recodes and merges of the data with extracts for an administrative information system, the small number of participants makes HTML submission appear more efficient. If an LEA has a large number of career switchers, then it needs to build this expertise in data collection and reporting on its programs in-house.  These programs may want to seek additional support from SCHEV for the submission process.