STATE legislatures across country are struggling with how best to monitor what matters. Although federal guidelines to help standardize collection of data on school dropouts came out several years ago with goal of improving consistency in how districts and schools gather numbers, guidelines did nothing to help establish information systems necessary to simplify process and ensure more accurate numbers. Now, with nearly every state requiring districts to produce cards, policy makers are realizing that data being reported leave much to be desired. For example, when a student leaves a high school, next school he or she attends may or may not request a transfer of student's records. But student might not attend another school. Or student might prefer to start fresh and attempt to prevent contact with previous school, perhaps by using a middle name. And counselors at first school don't usually have time to determine where student enrolled next or whether he or she enrolled anywhere. In some large schools, it's even possible for students to drop out and be gone for several months before record keeping jells enough for someone in office to discover that he or she has not been attending. Addressing this problem requires a way to make it easy to learn whether a student has enrolled elsewhere - an identification number, for example, that can be easily tracked across districts. Few states have infrastructure to support this type of data collection. Moreover, a number of legislative proposals would ban use of identification numbers, such as social security numbers, from being used to track student data. Georgia navigated this politically touchy area by passing a state law that permits student data to be tracked as long as doing so doesn't associate that data with individual students and maintains student and family privacy. The Georgia law stipulates that student identification numbers must be encoded to prevent unauthorized use. Statewide Models Ohio is one of several states that have taken lead in tracking student-level data. In same omnibus bill that established a strong accountability system, state legislature created Education Information Management System, an infrastructure to house type of data necessary to determine how well schools and districts are doing. In 1999, Massachusetts legislature required each school district to adopt and maintain a reliable data collection system. Part of system requires each district and charter school to have a unique, permanent, and unduplicated ID for each student. The Texas legislature established a similar system in 1995. For accountability report cards published in Texas, data are disaggregated by student groups: African American, Hispanic, white, and economically disadvantaged. The Outside Perspective In another aspect of using data to monitor what matters, New Ohio Institute published a report this spring titled Smart Schools: Does Ohio Put Its Money Where It Matters? (www.newohio.org). In it, New Ohio Institute concludes that, while state had set higher student achievement as primary goal of elementary and secondary education, it had failed to align its resources fully behind that goal. The Institute points to a lack of strategic planning, charging that the state spent $4.8 billion a year on public education in programs that were largely devoid of a structure that would make attainment of high academic achievement a priority. Setting aside such noninstructional activities as school nutrition services and pupil transportation, Institute examined such instructionally targeted programs as gifted education, teacher recruitment, special education, proficiency testing, public preschool, school improvement models, vocational education, and reading improvement initiatives. …