Governance structures at the state, district, and federal levels have significantly influenced how educators, administrators, students, and parents engage with and understand data. These spheres have evolved over several decades, due to technological advancements, streamlined data management systems, and most notably, the influx of additional funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

To gain a clearer understanding of how these spheres interact and influence individuals such as educators, parents, and students, we talked with our Vice President of Interoperability Solutions Rosh Dhanawade

More than 2 years ago, EA CEO Andrew Rice and Director at the Office of Research & Data Analysis at the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) Daniel Ralyea, authored the blog, “Data neighborhoods: Preserving context around educational data,” which discussed the role of governance in the transmission of data across contexts. In this blog, Andrew and Dan point to local control via decentralized governance as the most productive governance path to enable this data transmission. What might a real-world application of this sphere of governance look like, more than two years later, and have we seen examples of this governance in our work at Education Analytics?  

 

We’ve seen this type of governance in a few places now. South Carolina has formalized governance structure into a group that sits between the states and the school districts and helps coordinate district demand and represents district interests in interactions with the state. All this work has led to more districts than ever in South Carolina pushing data through this unified infrastructure. At the same time, the number of additional vendors becoming part of that ecosystem has increased because vendors are able to transact data with the districts, understand the shape and the content of that data, and invest more of their capital in those integrations. These integrations have been enabled by high engagement from districts in South Carolina.

The South Carolina District Data Governance Group (SCDDGG), a board consisting of multiple district members who represent the needs and views of all the districts in SC, has been a driving force behind advancing these integrations while advocating for clearer service levels. SCDDGG’s work has not only streamlined the data integration process but also highlighted the importance of collective decision-making and group advocacy, which is sometimes challenging when working with districts individually. 

We’re seeing a similar development in Texas, where the Texas Education Exchange is also moving towards becoming a crucial intermediary for managing governance, service levels, and availability of tooling and pricing on behalf of districts. It’s still very early, and their efforts are helping to define that essential role in Texas.  

Michigan’s DataHub and Data Exchange projects are another example of a well-established system that’s been consistently supported by districts, the independent school districts (ISDs), and the state agency. 

So, there’s three examples that illustrate the different stages of development: South Carolina’s, which has blossomed and matured during the past two years; Michigan’s long-standing system, and Texas’ efforts beginning to take shape.

For those unfamiliar with the term “governance spheres,” could you share a simplified definition and an example of what that means/looks like?  

 

The analogy that I like to use best is to think about a family structure. You have a family with children. The children have their own values and desires and goals, and the parents have their own values, desires, and goals, and sometimes those two things intersect, right? For example, when the parents want the kids to do something, or the kids want the parents to do something, there’s going to be a need for communication and compromise between them, as each has different values, purpose, goals, etc. 

If there are more kids, like in a classroom setting and you’re a teacher leading the classroom, you have the same thing there. You’re a teacher who has a certain set of values, purpose, mission, and then you have the students in the classroom that also have value, purpose, mission, and they are always negotiating their shared outcomes. Between the teacher and the students, their sets of values may have points where they coalesce and they push things forward, and there’s also times when they have friction between each other, and that friction also leads to positive outcomes. Maybe the students are saying, “This curriculum doesn't accurately represent our lived experience,” and it forces the teacher to revisit their approach to the subject, leading them to reflect and say, “Maybe I need to reshape my values.”  

This kind of dynamic also exists between school districts and state agencies of education. Even within a single district, there are distinct governance spheres—such as high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. While they all belong to the same organization, their approaches to the same core issues may differ, which may lead to both conflict and synergy. 

 

How do the current spheres of governance (federal, state, and district) interact and impact the educators, administrators, and district leaders that work within these spheres? 

 

We’re emerging from a period where federal funding, driven by the pandemic, has significantly influenced actions at both the district and state levels. The long-term effects of these investments—many of which have gone into infrastructure and program changes—will be interesting to monitor in the coming years as states and districts adapt to these changes.  

This is one of those instances where encroachment has been accepted. Typically, there's always a tenuous balance between all three spheres. Districts strive for local control; aiming to function as independently governed entities driven by local school boards and communities, which can create tension with state agencies. Similarly, state agencies seek to operate independently within their borders, sometimes leading to friction with other agencies.  

During the pandemic, the overwhelming availability of resources allowed for more flexibility in the boundaries that these agencies typically maintain. The federal funds provided during this time came with minimal restrictions—apart from deadlines for their use and broad guidelines for their allocation—giving state and district agencies greater latitude in how they could respond.  

Each state was given its own flexibility regarding how they wanted to distribute the funds, or whether to allocate them at the state level. States made decisions based on their own local governance, and in some cases, districts that received direct funding were also empowered to make independent decisions. The pandemic created a situation where the typical data governance boundaries became more fluid, leading to unexpected interactions due to the influx of funding and resources.  

I can’t personally say for certain, so I prefer not to speculate without more information; however, I am curious whether the federal government will take steps to assess how those funds are being used and plan accordingly, or if they’ll leave it entirely up to the states. While I’m not fully informed on the follow-up actions, it’s clear that, in terms of funding distribution to districts, this was a unique situation where the usual governance boundaries became more flexible. 

That flexibility, enabled by pandemic funding through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) dollars, had a tangible impact in the classroom as some school districts used the funding to enhance testing availability or overhaul their infrastructure. 

Many investments have been made since the start of the pandemic that we're not going to see the impacts of today, but in a decade from now, and this infusion of money and this flexibility in those governance spheres is going to allow for more opportunities that may not have existed without that flexibility between the three spheres. 

 

What improvements can be made, or have been made, to these spheres of governance to build trust and increase collaboration? 

 

The infusion of technology into communication streams, particularly the data communication streams between these government spheres, presents an opportunity for those within and amongst the governance spheres to have a say in how they treat data. 

One trend I am noticing from the field is that state agencies still often view data as needing to pass through many layers of verification before it is acceptable to consume by various stakeholders. But if you look at districts that have invested in infrastructure—that are generating that data and pushing that data to the states—are analyzing data in ways that more accurately reflect real-time conditions than the traditional state and reporting processes. When data changes hands from district, to interoperable system, to data warehouse, some nuance is inevitably lost, which can distort the reality it claims to represent. But with modernization of data systems in some states, that muting effect doesn't need to exist. An example of this could be how a state may recognize a student for the purposes of a headcount or average daily matriculation.  A kindergarten class could have a total of 20 students in the classroom, but two of them are four years old at the date the state takes it count. In the state’s view, there are 18 students, but the teacher’s lived reality is 20 students. 

Achieving this, though, requires substantial policy overhauls and much examination of what current policies are intended to accomplish versus what they incentivize. Currently, the policies may not align with how the data is generated at the district level. The effort districts invest to generate, collate, and transmit the data is, in my opinion, imbalanced in terms of the value they receive in return, given their on-the-ground realities.  

I'm particularly interested in seeing whether states that have invested in modernizing their data architecture will begin to shift their policies to better reflect the needs of the students. Now that the data can flow at a pace and with a granularity that allows for more precise policymaking, there’s an opportunity to align state, district, and federal agencies more closely with the needs of the constituencies they serve.  

While this may not represent an immediate improvement, I believe we’re on the verge of a significant adjustment. States that adapt their policies to match this advancement are likely to see long-term value from the investments they’re making in their students.  

 

In 2021, we shared a case study in collaboration with SCDE that focused on how to build a robust statewide data infrastructure that ensures local flexibility. Within the case study, we highlighted a diagram of the spheres of governance that included an additional sphere of governance, a mid-tier governance structure, that we built with South Carolina. This tier of governance was built to enable joint data governance, state-district collaboration, state funding of infrastructure (for local use), and mid-tier funding of infrastructure (beyond what the state paid for). What changes have been made to this tier of governance since we published this case study? Have we built this type of governance alongside any other partner organizations or states? 

This diagram from the 2021 SCDE case study highlights a mid-tier governance structure.

We’ve been leveraging the lessons we’ve learned during the past three years. In 2021, it was an idea and now it has had the benefit of several school years, district engagement with state agencies and the data governance layer, we've gained valuable insights into how responsibilities should be distributed. While we may not have enforced or driven partners to adopt the same level of governance, we’ve certainly absorbed those lessons. 

One example is the management of credentials and security. It’s not just about which agency handles the transfer of keys and secrets; the critical point is that in the district data governance group established clear policies on credential distribution. These things need to be obscured. We need to limit the ability for a district to have an opportunity to compromise their credentials. The group put considerable thought into these policies, and we’ve used those insights to either enhance our technology or inform best practices elsewhere, such as in Texas. Although Texas isn't using our technology for key distribution, we’ve influenced their methodology and practices through the conversations that took place among districts, their representatives, and the district governance layer. 

 

How do you imagine the current spheres of governance will change in the coming years to address data needs from states/districts and to keep up with technology advancements?   

 

One emerging trend I’m noticing is the recognition of parents and students existing as their own governance spheres. As a society, due to the pace of technology and the increasing demands placed on parents and students, we have just become used to signing software agreements without much of a second thought. We often scroll through the end user license agreements and ignore the attention to details. As these data systems continue to propagate, I foresee parents and students becoming more interested in the usage in how their data is being used and represented.  

A similar dynamic exists for state, federal, and other governance spheres above the district. For instance, when students gain near-real-time access to their data or see how the state metrics are calculated, it empowers them to form opinions on policy. It encourages them to have a voice in how they are categorized or how funding decisions are made that affect them.  

The same applies to parents, who often aren’t fully engaged in these processes. Speaking as a parent myself, I’ve rarely considered how my children’s data is being used at the state level. I recently received the state testing reports for my two oldest children, and while I have an interpretation of these reports, I don’t know who else is reviewing them, for what purpose, or what decisions being made regarding my children, their peer groups, or their school. 

I believe the increased availability and propagation of data systems will gradually expand the influence of parent and student governance spheres. This shift may not happen immediately, but as the current generation of students—who are digital natives—progress through the education system, they are likely to become more aware and assertive about their data. This generation has witnessed both the benefits and downsides of technology firsthand, and they, along with their parents, become more informed and could evolve into a more vocal and influential governance sphere than what currently exists.

Is there anything else regarding the discussion around the spheres of governance that you would like to address?   

 

I believe the concept of governance spheres is evergreen—they will always exist in some form. However, the shape, form, and function of these spheres is more susceptible to change over the next decade than the previous one due to the significantly increased effort required to access, process, and understand data today compared to a decade ago. As we move forward, governance spheres will need to grapple with the diverse parties that are asserting their values, control, and desired outcomes. They will also have to contend with the heightened visibility of these assertions, thanks to the greater access to data we currently have. This shift also underscores the need for education. Just because these technologies exist, doesn’t mean they’ll be immediately utilized to their full potential. There’s a responsibility on our part—and on the part of organizations like ours— to ensure that people are informed and educated about what they can achieve with these technologies.  

Explore Our Work