Education Dept. Praised For Data Collection Model
 |
| No Praise from Edward Snowden...YET! |
The U.S. Department of Education is being praised by both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its work in creating an inventory of all its data collections.
The GAO report was prompted by a request from the House Education and the Workforce Committee, responding to complaints from states and school districts that data collection and reporting was burdensome and duplicative.
MORE GOVERNMENT INSIGHTS
Webcasts
- Defeating Government Cyber Threats And Ensuring Cross-Domain Security
- Realizing agility with discipline: Addressing the needs of agile adoption in a government environment
White Papers
- Best Practices Guide for IT Governance & Compliance
- Best Practices Guide for IT Governance & Compliance
Reports
More >>
The Congressional watchdog agency found the department has taken extensive steps to establish internal control objectives and mechanisms, such as verifying the accuracy and validity of information about the many data collections. When GAO contacted OMB about the inventory of data collections, OMB officials said creating such an inventory should be considered "a best practice for federal agencies." OMB added that they did not know of any other agency creating an inventory, and that "Education was a leader in this practice."
Some of the data collections already included in the inventory are EDFacts, a centralized system of state-reported K-12 educational performance data; its Civil Rights Data Collection; and statistical data collections conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Still to be incorporated is the Common Core of Data and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Data collections such as those tracking federal student aid programs also will be added.
[ Learn how data can help federal agencies do more with less. Data-Driven Results Influence Federal Budget Cuts. ]
When the inventory is complete, it will contain more than 300 metadata fields covering the context of each data collection, such as the type of respondent (e.g., state, postsecondary, etc.),
