�鶹������ý

Numbers matter. They track progress, regress, and
effectiveness. They allow us to understand populations fully and to make
changes for the better—and student data is no exception. Without student data,
there is no way to account for, and therefore no way to serve, students who
face barriers to education.

Last month, the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) from its analysis of 50
state report cards, evaluating each individual state and the District of
Columbia based on the data it tracks in state report cards and how accessible
they are online. States are required by federal law to provide these annual
report cards showing who their students are, and how both those students and
the schools are performing—information that helps everyone from parents to
policymakers.

The DQC analysis revealed that report cards are often
“silent on whole groups of students,” with as many as 13 states not reporting
enrollment data on student gender, 7 on disability status, and 6 on race or
ethnicity.

These findings, when situated within the context of a broader
conversation about information and privacy, reveal just how inconsistent
student data collection and reporting can be, irregularities that have real
consequences for the information it actually provides.

A model state report card should include the most recent
assessment data, student performance data, and educator and student demographic
data. Without this information, it is difficult for parents to make the right
choice of school for their child, for federal leaders to allocate funding, and
for the state itself to know where improvements must be made.

It’s impossible, however, for data to be a resource if they
do not accurately reflect student populations. As collection and reporting
currently stand, there are large gaps in identity and demographics that, if
filled, would help data-collecting entities toward achieving their goal of
serving all students.

Although many data-collecting entities gather student
identity information, few do so in a way that accurately represents diverse
student populations. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), for
example, “mixed-race” as a catch-all category.
Doing so groups together millions of students who may be learning under very
different circumstances, in part because of their specific racial identities.
If a parent has a child who is biologically multiracial but identifies as
monoracial, they may select the race by which the child normally identifies.
Or, if the child is able to “pass” as one race or another—that is, if they
physically appear to the general public as monoracial—a parent may opt to
select that race because of the scholarship or social opportunities it
presents. Another parent in the same situation may select ‘mixed race’ for
their child because they understand that to be the technically-correct choice.
It is then impossible to know the actual racial makeup of students in each
category, and therefore impossible to know exactly how they are performing or
how policies affect them.

Similar technicality issues arise when selecting students’
gender. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the
largest body of publicly-available student identity information, enrollment, performance, and
discipline data by sex and not gender, which does not account for transgender
students. “Sex” is commonly understood as a biological category and “gender” as
the way someone identifies and operates in the world. At present, different
states have different laws regarding the way students are allowed to indicate
gender. In some states, the parent of a transgender student may select the sex
their child was assigned at birth, and the parent of another student may select
their child’s preferred gender. In the states that do not allow transgender
students to be represented as their actual gender, those students are
miscategorized, invalidating the data. Information with these gaps does not
serve transgender students because there is no way to know how many of them are
enrolled, how they are performing, or whether they face a disability.

Students offered services under IDEA, or the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, are also grouped together without nuance in
most data collection. IDEA with physical, intellectual,
and learning disabilities, but both CRDC and NCES indicate only student IDEA
status, not disability type. True, being required to report more specific data
on students’ individual disabilities may present privacy concerns for parents,
but data as they are collected now, could do more for the students they aim to
serve.

As all of this suggests, student demographic, or identity,
data counts among the information most critical to civil rights, providing
information on how students of particular races, genders, and abilities are
enrolling and performing in schools. It’s unclear from DQC’s findings which
demographic data are collected but not reported, and which data are simply not
collected.

Furthermore, DQC’s analysis highlights the importance of
which data we collect and the way we collect it. The very way information is
sought out simultaneously reflects and determines the way identity is
conceptualized. Collecting it in a way that does not reflect students’ true
identities will maintain a system that further excludes and disadvantages the
very students it ignores.

These findings also point to a larger gap in education data
where a focus on student representation should be: Are student data gathering
operations achieving their goals? Do they work for the students for whom
they’re designed?

OCR, the goals of are simple: to “collect data on leading civil rights
indicators related to access and barriers to educational opportunity at the
early childhood through grade 12 levels,” and to be a resource for educators
and parents who seek data on student equity and opportunity.

Now, on the eve of a Trump presidency, accurate
representation is more important than ever. The incoming administration’s of fighting against the students who
most need representation is indicative of what’s to come. Trump will soon be in
a place of power to act on the , keeping
students of diverse identities at a disadvantage. The in
schools since the election underscores the dangerous attitudes and violence
that this election has emboldened. If this pattern continues—as it likely
will—without easily accessible data to advocate against it, the status of
already-marginalized students will become worse. Unlike the Obama’s election, this
violence is in the name of the president. It is in the name of disdain for the
very groups of students whom education data ignore.

Without representation in data, students remain invisible.
They are invisible to the public, to their schools, and to policymakers who
have control over their well-being. Just as identity is complex, so too are the
answers to the issues it presents in data. Without more accurate categories for
racial, gender, and disability identities, widely-accepted definitions of these
categories, and directions for parents of children who may belong to more than
one, millions of students will continue to face overwhelming barriers to
���ܳ����پ��Dz�.��