In an era increasingly influenced by data, one glaring blind spot in education that exists is understanding how our high school graduates perform in university and what that tells us about the effectiveness of our K-12 systems. When asked how our graduates are performing in university, I usually can offer only anecdotes rather than evidence—despite leading a district that prides itself on being data rich. As a credit to our high school and career counsellors, we work hard to keep track of what all our students do after high school – in our case about 95% go to post-secondary within a year, but after that we don’t know much. As a school superintendent, I find this gap deeply frustrating, especially given the wealth of data universities already collect on everything from course grades and completion rates to student engagement metrics and academic support utilization and the great work of the BC Council on Admissions and Transfer to track students through their post-secondary journeys.
We know how students perform within the K-12 system. Graduation rates, student satisfaction surveys, FSA and Graduation Program exams, and course completions are tracked and analyzed. But once students leave our system, the data trail cools. Universities maintain detailed records on student performance across academic programs, tracking not just grades but also participation in support services, course progression patterns, and even early warning indicators of academic struggle. They can analyze how students from different regions, districts, and even countries perform. Some enrolment managers in higher education even track success rates based on the school district and school they came from. But what’s missing is an effort to bring this data together to create a clear picture of how K-12 systems influence university success.
Imagine if we had access to data showing how students from our district or our province fare in first-year university math compared to students from Alberta, or even students internationally. If Alberta students consistently outperform others, it prompts important questions: What are they doing in their high schools to set students up for success in math? Could we adapt some of their approaches? This isn’t about competition; it’s about collaboration and learning. One example I have of this, that I still reference more than 20 years later is this study from UBC that is a version of what I am describing. From 1995-2005 UBC posted this data in math and physics. It was actually students from Alberta that outperformed all others in 2005 (humble brag – West Vancouver students were next). This kind of data opens a lot of other questions, and I don’t want to speak absolutely about what it really says – but at least it starts the conversation.
Of course, implementing such data integration faces legitimate challenges. Privacy concerns must be carefully addressed through robust anonymization protocols and clear data governance frameworks. Where small numbers exist, 5 year running averages can anonymize data while providing useful trend lines. The cost and complexity of building integrated data systems can be significant, but a lot of this work is already being done – there are potential efficiencies to be gained from greater collaboration between the K-12 and post-secondary sectors. Some will argue (rightly) that university success shouldn’t be our primary metric, given that many students choose different paths, and these efforts would imply K-12 is just intended to be university prep. And to be clear, having data from BCIT and other trades programs would be as valuable as from universities as we focus on success and not any particular endeavor. An additional challenge we face in West Vancouver is that, while only 5% of students in BC attend university outside of the province, our figure stands at 50%, many heading internationally to Europe or the US. This substantial outbound migration of students further complicates our ability to track and analyze our post secondary trends. But even having just BC data is a useful start. These are valid concerns, but they’re not insurmountable obstacles—they’re design parameters for thoughtful solutions.
The benefits of such integration would extend far beyond district offices. Teachers could gain insights into which instructional approaches best prepare students for university success, refining their methods accordingly. Students and families making college choices would have better information about which high school programs align with their post-secondary goals. Curriculum developers could identify gaps between high school preparation and university expectations. College readiness programs could target their support more effectively, using data to identify where students typically struggle in the transition.
Too often, we rely on gut feelings or isolated anecdotes to assess whether we are preparing students well. Teachers and parents share stories of graduates excelling (or struggling) in university, but these stories, while valuable, don’t provide the comprehensive insights we need to make systemic improvements.
The structures needed to bridge K-12 and university data systems could start simple: regular data-sharing meetings between district and university leadership, standardized reporting templates that align high school and university metrics, and shared research projects examining student transition patterns. Over time, these could evolve into more sophisticated systems that provide real-time insights while maintaining student privacy.
By building a bridge between the data collected in K-12 and the outcomes measured in university, we can better understand where we excel and where we need to improve. We’ll gain insights into which practices, curricula, and support systems genuinely prepare students for post-secondary success. More importantly, we can act on these insights to give all students a better chance to thrive, whether their path leads to university, college, trades, or the workforce.
It’s time to move beyond gut feelings. In this data-rich era, we owe it to our students to let evidence help guide our decisions, helping us thoughtfully and systematically get better. The technology exists and is only improving with advances in AI. The data is there. Now we need the will to connect them in service of student success.
Thanks to West Van teacher Stephen Price for his assistance with this post.
Chat GPT and Claude were used to support the editing and proofreading process. The image at the top of the post was generated in AI.
