IES Blog

Institute of Education Sciences

Accessing the Common Core of Data (CCD)

Every year, NCES releases nonfiscal data files from the Common Core of Data (CCD), the Department of Education’s (ED’s) primary longitudinal database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. CCD data releases include directory data (location, status, and grades offered), student membership data (by grade, gender, and race/ethnicity), data on full-time equivalent staff and teachers, and data on the number of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

This blog post, one in a series of posts about CCD data, focuses on how to access and use the data. For information on using NSLP data, read the blog post Understanding School Lunch Eligibility in the Common Core of Data

CCD Data Use

CCD data are used both internally by ED and externally by the public. For example, within ED, CCD data serve as the sample frame for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and are the mainstay of many tables in the Digest of Education Statistics and The Condition of Education. Outside of ED, CCD data are used by researchers, the general public (e.g., realtor sites, The Common Application, Great Schools), and teachers who need their school’s NCES school ID to apply for grants.

Data Structure and Availability

CCD data are available at the state, district, and school levels, using a nested structure: all schools are within a parent district and all districts are within a state. CCD does not include any student- or staff-level data.

Most CCD data elements are available for school year (SY) 1986‒87 to the present.    

Unique Identifiers Within CCD

NCES uses a three-part ID system for public schools and districts: state-based Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes, district codes, and school codes. Using these three parts, several IDs can be generated:

  • District IDs: 7-digit (FIPS + 5-digit District)
  • School IDs:
    • 12-digit (FIPS + District + School)
    • 7-digit (FIPS + School) (unique from SY 2016‒17 on)

NCES IDs are assigned to districts and schools indefinitely, making them useful for analyzing data over time. For example, for a longitudinal school-level analysis, a school’s 7-digit ID should be used, as it remains the same even if the school changes districts. These IDs can also be used to link CCD district and school data to other ED databases.

Accessing CCD Data

There are three ways to access CCD data: the CCD District and School Locators, the Elementary/Secondary Information System (ElSi), and the raw data files. Each approach has different benefits and limitations.

  • CCD District and School locators
    • Quick and easy to use
    • Many ways to search for districts and schools (e.g., district/school name, street address, county, state)
    • Provides the latest year of CCD data available for the selected district(s) or school(s)
    • Tips for optimal use:
      • If you are having difficulty finding a district or school, only enter a key word for the name (e.g., for PS 100 Glen Morris in New York City, only enter “Glen Morris” or “PS 100”)
      • Export search results to Excel (including all CCD locator fields)

  • Elementary/Secondary Information System (ElSi)
    • quickFacts and expressTables: view most-requested CCD data elements at multiple levels
    • tableGenerator: combine data across topic areas and years to create a single file
    • Create “tables” that act like databases and include all of the roughly 100,000 public schools or 20,000 districts
    • Export data to Excel or CSV
    • Tips for optimal use:
      • Save and edit queries using the navigation buttons at the top of the screen
      • popularTables provide links to frequently requested data

 

Interested in learning more about CCD or accessing CCD data at the state, district, or school level? Check out the CCD website and use the District and School locators, ElSi, or the raw data files to find the data you are looking for.

 

By Patrick Keaton, NCES

World Braille Day: Research on Teaching Braille to Students with Visual Impairments

January 4 is World Braille Day, which aims to increase awareness of the importance of braille as a means of communication for those who are blind or with visual impairment. The date chosen honors the birthday of Louis Braille, who invented a reading and writing system – braille – consisting of raised dots that are read via touch. This system of reading and writing is an important component of education and literacy for many individuals. Recognizing this importance, Simon Fisher-Baum, Robert Englebretson, and Cay Holbrook were awarded a NCSER grant in 2019 to explore the knowledge, skills, and strategies teachers of students with visual impairments need to effectively teach braille reading and writing. We asked this team of researchers to answer a few questions about their work on teaching braille in recognition of World Braille Day.

What do we already know about the complexities surrounding learning braille for a person with visual impairment?

The ability to read and write braille is crucial for individuals who are blind, just as print literacy is crucial for individuals who are sighted. Braille literacy opens a host of opportunities for education, leisure, and employment. Learning to read and write braille depends on children having direct instruction from competent professionals who know braille and recognize its importance in facilitating literacy. Most children who learn braille do so under the instruction of a Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments (TVI) with support from their classroom teachers who generally are only familiar with print. One major challenge for children learning braille is having sufficient access to a TVI. A second challenge involves the differences between print and braille and the different perspectives required of a typically sighted TVI and the children with visual impairment. The sighted TVI has learned braille as a 'code' (and thinks about transliterating it to their much stronger knowledge of print) whereas children are learning braille as their primary system of reading and writing. It is this potential mismatch that we are focusing on for our project. We seek to understand the perceptual and cognitive underpinnings of braille as a writing system for its readers in contrast with the print-based 'code' perspective that TVIs often implicitly and unconsciously bring to their teaching.

Your project has the challenge of researching a low-incidence population. Describe how you are able to find your sample.

There are no current, reliable demographics of the number of individuals who read braille in the United States. But the fact remains that even in a large city like Houston, where two of the co-PIs are based, it would be a real challenge to find a sufficient number of braille readers to conduct studies with any degree of statistical power. Because of this, we recruit participants at summer conventions of blindness organizations where there are large numbers of braille readers present. At least we hope to do this again once people can gather safely. Meanwhile, we are developing experiments involving adult braille readers submitting braille writing samples online and, thanks to the support of the Braille Institute of America, we are analyzing spelling tests and writing samples from over 1000 braille-learning children from the U.S. and Canada who participated in a literacy-focused contest called the Braille Challenge. In addition, we have access to teachers of students with visual impairments who read and write braille through the Braille Institute and professional conferences as well as strong contacts of researchers involved in this grant.

Tell us a little more about the Braille Challenge.

The Braille Challenge is an annual contest for braille-reading children in grades 1-12 in the U.S. and Canada that celebrates braille literacy and the academic use of braille. Since 2003, the Braille Institute of America has sponsored this event. You can think of the Braille Challenge a bit like the Scripps National Spelling Bee for kids who read braille, with sub-contests in areas such as spelling, writing braille from dictation, reading comprehension, proofreading, and analyzing tactile charts and graphs. The written materials that students produce from these contests are a treasure trove of comparative data. They enable us to analyze the error patterns in the same words and sentences produced by a large number of students, track the development and error patterns in the same students over the years, and ultimately associate student outcomes with the specific attitudes, knowledge, and skills their TVIs (who attend the contest with their students) bring to the teaching of braille.

Your project is using some innovative data collection approaches, such as finger and eye tracking studies. What do you hope to learn from this part of your project that can be better understood by these data collection approaches? 

Eye tracking is, of course, central in the reading sciences for understanding key perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic processing aspects of reading standard print. There has been little work to address those same types of questions with braille readers using finger-tracking technology. Our finger-tracking experiments will help us compare the proficiency of adult braille readers with the ways in which braille is being taught. In addition, one area that has never been explored is the underpinnings of how TVIs read braille. Typically, sighted TVIs read braille by eye (not by touch), and we would like to understand how reading braille by eye is similar to or different from how these same individuals read print by eye, and in turn, how TVIs reading braille by sight is similar to and different from the typical way blind readers read braille by touch.

What impact do you hope your project will have on how TVIs are trained and how they teach braille to students?

We hope that by understanding how braille is conceptualized and read differently by TVIs, proficient braille-reading adults who are blind, and children learning to read and write braille, our project will ultimately lead to evidence-based interventions for both TVIs and learners. This may include improved curricula for university TVI personnel preparation programs and improved materials designed for children learning braille that leverage their unique perspectives as braille readers.

Tell us about your research team and the diversity of experiences among team members with braille.


Clockwise from top left: Cay Holbrook, Simon Fischer-Baum, Robert Englebretson

The three research team members complement each other in areas of expertise, as well as in experiences with braille. Robert Englebretson is currently chair of the Linguistics Department at Rice University. He teaches a course on braille from the perspective of cognitive science and linguistics research. He has been recognized internationally for his work updating and publishing the braille version of the International Phonetic Alphabet, which enables access to careers in the language sciences for those who are blind or visually impaired and has served as co-chair of the research committee of the Braille Authority of North America. He also brings to this project his perspective as a life-long braille reader and his lived experience of the importance of braille literacy.

Simon Fischer-Baum is an Associate Professor of Psychological Sciences at Rice University. He comes to this project as a cognitive scientist who focuses on understanding literacy, using a wide variety of methods, from the careful analyses of the errors people make when reading and writing to analysis of the patterns of brain activity generated when we read and the study of individuals who have lost the ability to read or write following stroke. He learned about braille as a part of this current collaboration and applies his skillset as a cognitive scientist of language to figuring out the mental representations and processes that underlie how braille is read and written.

Cay Holbrook is a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada. She learned braille during her undergraduate program as part of an initial teaching credential. She began working as a teacher of students with visual impairments in Rock Hill, South Carolina and has also worked directly with students in K-12 in parts of Georgia and Florida. Her commitment to direct, ongoing, and consistent instruction by qualified teachers has guided much of her work. Her research and scholarship have included the publication of more than 12 co-authored or co-edited textbooks as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. She holds a PhD in special education from Florida State University. She has prepared teachers of students with visual impairments in Canada and the U.S. and was a member of the original advisory committee for the Braille Challenge.

What other research do you think is needed in the area of learning braille? What are your future plans to continue research in this area?

There is still much to be learned about how braille is read and written, and there are many lines of inquiry in braille literacy that would benefit greatly from a multidisciplinary approach to research like we are taking here. After we complete this project, our next goal would be to develop and test interventions that bring the perspectives of TVIs closer to the learning challenges their students are facing. But there is also the opportunity for new lines of research. One key question is how braille is learned by people who become blind later in life, including school-age children and older adults. There is already some evidence that these readers approach reading by touch differently than individuals who have only learned braille, but more research is needed to explore how those who become blind after learning to read print approach learning braille and what kinds of instructional strategies would best support their literacy acquisition. It is also worth exploring how different service delivery models – that is, what role the TVI plays in the student’s education plan – impact how the student learns to read and write. Finally, we know little about whether learning differences that lead to dyslexia and dysgraphia in the print reading population also occur in the braille reading population. To our knowledge, these kinds of developmental differences have never been explored within the population of braille reading children, but if they do occur, it seems like additional interventions would be needed with these students to help them acquire literacy.

 

Addressing COVID-19’s Disruption of Student Assessment

Under an IES grant, the RAND Corporation, in collaboration with NWEA, is developing strategies for schools and districts to address the impacts of COVID-19 disruptions on student assessment programs. The goal is to provide empirical evidence of the strengths and limitations of strategies for making decisions in the absence of assessment data. Jonathan Schweig, Andrew McEachin, and Megan Kuhfeld describe early findings from surveys and structured interviews regarding key concerns of districts and schools. 

 

As a first step, we surveyed assessment and research coordinators from 23 school districts (from a sample of 100 districts) and completed follow-up interviews with seven of them on a variety of topics, including the re-entry scenario for their district, the planning activities that they were not able to perform this year due to coronavirus-based disruptions to spring 2020 assessments, and the strategies they were employing to support instructional planning in the absence of assessment data. While the research is preliminary and the sample of respondents is not nationally representative, the survey and interview responses identified two key concerns arising from the lack of spring 2020 assessment data which has made it challenging to examine student or school status and change over time, especially as COVID-19 has differential impacts on student subgroups:

 

  • Making course placement decisions. Administrators typically rely on spring assessment scores—often in conjunction with other assessment information, course grades, and teacher recommendations—to make determinations for course placements, such as who should enroll in accelerated or advanced mathematics classes. 
  • Evaluating programs or district-wide initiatives. Many districts monitor the success of these programs internally by looking at year-to-year change or growth for schools or subgroups of interest. 

 

How are school systems responding to these challenges? Not surprisingly, the responses vary depending on local contexts and resources. Where online assessments were not feasible in spring 2020, some school districts used older testing data to make course recommendations, either from the winter or from the previous school year. Some districts relaxed typical practice and provided more autonomy to individual schools, relying on school staff to exercise local judgment around course placements and using metrics like grades and teacher recommendations. Other districts reported projecting student scores based on student assessment histories. Relatedly, some districts were already prepared for this decision because they had recently experienced difficulties with adopting an online assessment system and had to address similar problems caused by large numbers of missing or invalid tests.

 

School districts also raised concerns about whether assessments administered during the 2020-21 school year would be valid and comparable so that they could be used in student placement and program evaluation decisions. These concerns included the following:

  • Several respondents raised concerns about the trustworthiness of remote assessment data collected this fall and the extent to which results could be interpreted as valid indicators of student achievement or understanding.
  • Particularly for districts that started the 2020-21 school year remotely, respondents were concerned about student engagement and motivation and the possibility of students rushing assessments, running into technological or internet barriers, or seeking assistance from guardians or other resources. 
  • Respondents raised questions about the extent to which available assessment scores are representative of school or district performance as a whole. Given that vulnerable students (for example, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness) may be the least likely to have access to remote instruction and assessments, it is likely that the students who are not assessed this year are different from students who are able to be assessed.
  • Other respondents noted that they encountered resistance from parents around fall assessment because they prioritized student well-being (for example, safety, sense of community, and social and emotional well-being) more so than academics. This is a perspective that resonates with recent findings from a nationally representative sample of teachers and school leaders drawn from RAND’s American Educator Panel (AEP).

 

In the next phase of the work, the research team plans to:

  • Conduct a series of simulation and empirical studies regarding the most common strategies that the district respondents indicated they were using to make course placement decisions and to evaluate programs or district-wide initiatives.
  • Provide a framework to help guide local research on the intended (and unintended) consequences for school and school system decision making when standardized test scores are not available.

 

We welcome individuals to reach out to RAND with additional recommendations or considerations. We are also interested in hearing how districts are approaching course placement, accountability, and program evaluation across the country. Connect with the research team via email at jschweig@rand.org.

 


Jonathan Schweig is a social scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Andrew McEachin is a senior policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Megan Kuhfeld is a researcher at NWEA.

NCES's Top Hits of 2020

As we wrap up what has been an unprecedented year in many ways, we’re taking a look back at some of NCES’s most popular content from 2020. As you reflect on the past year, we hope you’ll explore our most downloaded reports, most visited indicators, Fast Facts, and blog posts, and most viewed tweets over the past year. 

 

Top Five Reports, by number of PDF downloads

1. Condition of Education 2020 (7,328)

2Digest of Education Statistics 2018 (4,936)

3. Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 (3,379)

4. Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2019 (2,994)

5. First-Generation Students: College Access, Persistence, and Postbachelor’s Outcomes (2,382)

 

Top Five indicators from the Condition of Education, by number of web sessions

1. Students With Disabilities (82,304)

2. Public High School Graduation Rates (66,993)

3. Education Expenditures by Country (61,766)

4. English Language Learners in Public Schools (46,293)

5. Undergraduate Enrollment (46,766)

 

Top Five Fast Facts, by number of web sessions

1. Back to School Statistics (214,148)

2. Tuition Costs of Colleges and Universities (111,491)

3. College and University Endowments (78,735)

4. Degrees Conferred by Race and Sex (73,980)

5. Closed Schools (69,142)

 

Top Five Blog Posts, by number of web sessions

1. Introducing the 2020 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) and Its Website (7,822)

2. Back to School by the Numbers: 2019–20 School Year (4,400)

3. Free or Reduced Price Lunch: A Proxy for Poverty? (4,199)

4. Educational Attainment Differences by Students’ Socioeconomic Status (2,919)

5. The Digital Divide: Differences in Home Internet Access (2,699)

 

Top Five Tweets, by number of impressions

1. Teacher Appreciation Day (21,146)

 

2. International Education Week (18,333)

 

3. Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2019 (17,383)

 

4. International Early Learning Study 2018 Pilot (10,870)

 

5. NAEP Data Training Workshop (10,782)

 

Be sure to check our blog site and the NCES website to stay up-to-date on new findings and trends in 2021. You can also follow NCES on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn for daily updates and content.

From Fellow to Funded: Former IES Postdoctoral Fellows Funded as Principal Investigators

As part of our Spotlight on IES Training Programs series, IES is proud to showcase five former IES postdoctoral fellows who are now principal investigators for grants funded in FY 2020. The goal of the NCER and NCSER postdoctoral training programs is to prepare scholars to conduct rigorous, relevant education and special education research. As the following examples demonstrate, IES fellows are contributing to evidence-based education in a wide range of academic domains and are addressing the needs of students, teachers, and families through their innovative measurement, exploratory, development, and evaluation work.

 

Dr. Crystal Bishop (IES Fellow at the University of Florida until 2016) will lead Tools for Families. This project will develop and pilot test a new component for an existing intervention that aims to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities in preschool programs. The existing program is called Evaluating Embedded Instruction for Early Learning (EIEL) and already includes tools to help teachers. In this new study, Dr. Bishop will create an additional component that helps teachers engage students’ families in implementing EIEL strategies.

 

Dr. Joseph Nese (IES Fellow at the University of Oregon until 2011) will lead A Comprehensive Measure of Reading Fluency: Uniting and Scaling Accuracy, Rate, and Prosody. This project aims to develop and validate an automated scoring system of oral reading fluency for students in grades 2 to 4 to better identify students in need of reading interventions and better evaluate reading interventions and builds off a previous grant Dr. Nese received as PI, Measuring Oral Reading Fluency: Computerized Oral Reading Evaluation (CORE) (R305A140203).

 

Dr. David Purpura (IES Fellow at the University of Illinois until 2012) will lead Reading and Playing With Math: Promoting Preschoolers' Math Language Through Picture Books and Play Activities. This program will develop, refine, and evaluate a new math language intervention, Reading and Playing with Math (RP-Math). RP-Math will leverage the language instruction using storybooks and mathematics instruction.

 

Dr. Rachel Rosen (IES Fellow at the University of Michigan until 2014) will lead Choice and Information: The Impact of Technology-Based Career Advising Tools on High School Students' CTE Choices and Academic Performance. This project will evaluate  two widely used technology-based career advising tools for secondary school students, Naviance and YouScience, to see whether and how these tools influence student thinking about career options, career and technical education (CTE) coursework and work-based learning options, and decisions about CTE pathways and programs of study.

 

Dr. Candace Walkington (IES Fellow at the University of Wisconsin, Madison until 2013) will lead Exploring Collaborative Embodiment for Learning (EXCEL): Understanding Geometry Through Multiple Modalities. This program will explore how different types multisensory experiences and modes of collaboration affect students' geometric reasoning. The researchers will leverage augmented reality (AR) technology to see if different ways of engaging with content (such as holograms, tablet-based, or paper-based images) lead to different learning outcomes.

 


This blog was written by Shirley Liu, virtual intern and an English/Anthropology & Sociology double major at Lafayette College, and Dr. Meredith Larson, program officer for NCER postdoctoral training.