Much of the impetus for structuring the assessment data is the need to complete reports such as Title II. In the past we have depended on the vendor to compile the data and programs to verify the results. This system has two main problems:
- Neither the vendor nor the programs are ultimately responsible for the reported data. (The current system requires the vendor to depend on PESB to approve changes submitted from programs.)
- Incentives for keeping good records are not set correctly.
- The vendor is not incentivized to retain corrections from year to year (programs can just make the changes again).
- Programs with efficient data systems have the capacity to note smaller errors and will likely feel obligated to correct the errors (more work).
- Programs with less efficient data systems are less likely to double-check the vendor's data as long as the report is positive (less work).
For the 2012 Title II assessment data to be submitted to PESB:
|Note - Setting the universe is the more challenging area of this report. There are some detailed technical questions that need to be answered, such as, "Do we include records for people who are enrolled but are no longer pursuing that endorsement?"
|Note - Computations can also be thought of as aggregated variables.|
|Computations require groupings (must define what groups need to be averaged or added)
||Note - Groupings can also be thought of as break variables in aggregations.
|The Title II report is actually six individual queries that are stacked on one table, these are defined by "GROUP"|
|Note - It is possible to think of these queries as just additional break variables, but because an individual is counted in more than one group it might be easier to build these as individual queries.|