Dollars For Data – Grok: In Order To Continue Receiving Federal Dollars, Oklahoma Needs To Gather Data On Babies Through 20-Year-Olds

I’m not a huge fan of AI, but I’ve been a researcher since 1990 and this tool has helped me find data more quickly and completely than I ever have before.

Today, because I’m still trying find a way to explain that SB224 is NOT FOR Oklahoma’s kids, but to satisfy a broader need to plan the economy on a national level, I asked Grok “does the federal government require states to codify the need to connect education and workforce data”? I got a long, in-depth, very interesting answer. So, is this to help Oklahoma’s kids, or get more federal grants? I’ll let you be the judge.

Grok’s answer:

The federal government does not explicitly require states to codify into state law a specific mandate to connect education and workforce data as a condition for receiving federal grants. However, federal policies, grant programs, and regulations often incentivize or require states to establish systems for linking education and workforce data to meet reporting, accountability, or performance goals. These requirements can typically be met through administrative actions, interagency agreements, or data systems like Oklahoma’s Data Sharing Hub (DASH), without necessarily codifying the connection into state statutes. Below is a detailed analysis based on available information:

Federal Context for Education and Workforce Data Integration

1. Relevant Federal Laws and Programs:
   • Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, 2014):
     • WIOA is the primary federal law governing workforce development programs. It requires states to develop integrated data systems to track participant outcomes across workforce, education, and training programs (e.g., Title I for adults, Title II for adult education, Title IV for vocational rehabilitation).
     • States must report performance metrics, such as employment rates, earnings, and credential attainment, which often require linking education and workforce data. For example, WIOA’s performance accountability provisions (29 U.S.C. § 3141) mandate data collection and reporting, which may involve connecting education records (e.g., high school or college completion) with employment outcomes.
     • While WIOA encourages states to establish data-sharing agreements or systems, it does not explicitly require codification into state law. States can comply through administrative frameworks, such as memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between agencies or platforms like DASH.
   • Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015):
     • ESSA requires states to report on student outcomes, including college and career readiness indicators, which may involve linking education data to workforce outcomes (e.g., post-secondary enrollment or employment).
     • States receiving ESSA funds must submit state plans and comply with accountability requirements, but these do not mandate codifying data linkages. Instead, states often use existing data systems or establish new ones to meet federal reporting needs.
   • Perkins V (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, 2018):
     • Perkins V funds career and technical education (CTE) programs and emphasizes aligning education with workforce needs. It requires states to report on CTE student outcomes, such as employment or post-secondary success, which often necessitates data integration.
     • Like WIOA, Perkins V encourages data system interoperability but does not require states to pass laws mandating data connections. States can use administrative tools or data-sharing platforms to comply.
   • Higher Education Act (HEA):
     • The HEA governs federal student aid and includes reporting requirements for post-secondary institutions, such as graduation rates and employment outcomes. Some grant programs under HEA may encourage data linkages to track student success, but codification is not a requirement.
2. Federal Grant Conditions:
   • Federal grants, particularly those tied to WIOA, ESSA, or Perkins V, often include conditions related to data collection and reporting. For instance, WIOA grants require states to submit annual performance reports that integrate education and workforce data (e.g., 20 CFR § 677.155).
     • These conditions typically focus on outcomes rather than prescribing how states achieve them. States can meet requirements through data-sharing agreements, longitudinal data systems (SLDS), or platforms like DASH, without codifying policies into law.
     • Some competitive grants, such as the U.S. Department of Education’s State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant Program, explicitly fund the development of integrated data systems. While these grants require states to build capacity for data linkages, they do not mandate legislative codification. Instead, they emphasize technical and administrative solutions.
   • The Department of Labor’s Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI) provides grants to enhance state data systems for tracking workforce and education outcomes. WDQI encourages states to link data across agencies but allows flexibility in implementation, typically through administrative means rather than statutory mandates.
3. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA):
   • FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) governs the privacy of education records and impacts how states link education and workforce data. States must ensure compliance with FERPA when sharing student data, which may require data-sharing agreements or secure systems like DASH.
   • While FERPA imposes strict requirements on data handling, it does not mandate codification of data-linking policies. States can address FERPA through administrative protocols or interagency agreements.
4. State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS):
   • The federal government has supported SLDS development since 2005 through the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). SLDS grants aim to create systems that link early childhood, K-12, post-secondary, and workforce data to inform policy and improve outcomes.
   • While SLDS grants require states to build and maintain these systems, the focus is on technical infrastructure and data governance, not on passing state laws. States can establish SLDS through executive action, agency collaboration, or platforms like DASH.

Oklahoma’s Context and DASH

• Oklahoma’s Data Sharing Hub (DASH):
  • As noted in your previous question, DASH is Oklahoma’s platform for secure interagency data sharing, managed by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES). It supports data integration for various state functions, including those tied to federal grants.
  • DASH likely facilitates compliance with federal reporting requirements under WIOA, ESSA, or Perkins V by enabling secure data linkages between education agencies (e.g., Oklahoma State Department of Education) and workforce agencies (e.g., Oklahoma Employment Security Commission).
  • There is no evidence that DASH’s operation or Oklahoma’s participation in federal grants requires codifying a mandate to connect education and workforce data. Instead, DASH serves as an administrative tool to meet federal expectations for data integration and reporting.
• Oklahoma’s Approach:
  • Oklahoma has pursued data integration through initiatives like the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS), supported by federal grants. These efforts focus on technical and administrative solutions, such as data governance frameworks and interagency MOUs, rather than legislative mandates.
  • State laws, such as those governing data privacy or agency operations, may indirectly support data sharing (e.g., compliance with FERPA or state data security standards), but there is no specific Oklahoma statute mandating education-workforce data linkages as a condition of federal funding.

Does Codification Ever Occur?

• Federal Incentives, Not Mandates:
  • While the federal government does not require codification, it may incentivize states to formalize data-sharing frameworks to ensure sustainability or compliance. For example, SLDS or WDQI grants may encourage states to establish governance structures, which some states codify into law for clarity or permanence.
  • States like Tennessee and Kentucky have passed laws to formalize SLDS or data-sharing governance (e.g., Tennessee’s P-20 Council), but these are state-driven initiatives, not federal mandates. Oklahoma has not taken this approach, relying instead on administrative tools like DASH.
• State Discretion:
  • States may choose to codify data-sharing policies to address privacy concerns, ensure long-term funding, or align with federal grant requirements. For instance, a state might pass a law to clarify agency roles in data sharing or to comply with FERPA. However, this is not a federal requirement but a state policy choice.

Limitations and Variability

• Grant-Specific Requirements: Some federal grants may include conditions that indirectly require data linkages, such as reporting on employment outcomes for CTE students under Perkins V. These conditions focus on outcomes, not codification, but states may codify policies to streamline compliance.
• Privacy and Security: Federal laws like FERPA and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) impose strict requirements on data sharing, which may necessitate state-level policies or agreements. However, these can be administrative rather than legislative.
• No Universal Mandate: There is no blanket federal requirement for states to codify education-workforce data linkages. The emphasis is on functional data systems and compliance with reporting requirements, which states can achieve through various means.

Conclusion

The federal government does not require states to codify into state law a mandate to connect education and workforce data to receive federal grants. Instead, laws like WIOA, ESSA, and Perkins V, along with grant programs like SLDS and WDQI, encourage or require states to integrate data for reporting and accountability purposes. States can meet these requirements through administrative actions, data-sharing agreements, or platforms like Oklahoma’s DASH, without passing new laws. While some states voluntarily codify data-sharing frameworks, this is not a federal mandate but a state choice. In Oklahoma, DASH likely supports compliance with federal data requirements, but there is no evidence of a codified mandate tied to federal funding. If you have a specific grant or program in mind, I can analyze its requirements further.