By Devin Vodicka and Lisa Gonzales
Data. The word itself is enough to strike fear in the heart of any educator. In today’s context of high-stakes accountability, our experience has been that conversations around data and assessment are often accompanied by involuntary twitching, tears, bewilderment and, at times, denial. Isn’t this just another trend that will soon fall by the wayside? Some of these emotions have valid roots in the inherent disconnect that arises in attempting to quantify human development in a field driven by relationships. However, it is also our belief that some of this discomfort is simply a manifestation of our collective lack of experience in using information as a tool in the continuous improvement process.
In this article we will provide suggestions on building trust and recommend free resources that can improve your efficiency and effectiveness in using data to improve teaching and learning.
One of the key obstacles to using data is the fact that teachers and administrators often perceive data as a threat. In 1997, Mike Schmoker’s book, “Results,” included sections with titles such as “Fear of Data and Results” and “Reducing Threat from Setting Goals.” Nearly 10 years later, he begins his book “Results Now” with a description of the “buffer” that keeps us from truly confronting the reality of teaching and learning.
Some direction for building trust
Suggestions about implementing professional learning communities frequently include a reminder to be clear about separating the collection and analysis of common assessment performance data from the teacher evaluation process (Schmoker, 2006).
The punitive aspects of NCLB and the Program Improvement process seem to exacerbate the collective fears of the educational community. In some ways, the task of reframing data as a tool to help student performance can appear to be overwhelming.
The use of data in traditional school settings can only occur in a high trust environment. Fortunately, there is a growing research base that not only reinforces the centrality of trust as a leadership issue, but also provides some direction for building trust.
Fellow administrators have expressed surprise to find that the level of trust that teachers have for the principal is almost entirely dependent on the behaviors of the principal (Gimbel, 2003). Even more surprisingly, the level of trust that teachers have for those principals and other instructional leaders appears to connect to other relationships as well (Brewster & Railsback, 2003).
One of us found in our research that the key components comprising the trusting relationship between teachers and principals are consistency, compassion, communication and competence (Vodicka, 2006).
Bryk and Schneider (2002) were able to determine that schools characterized by high-trust relationships were three times more likely to improve in reading and mathematics achievement than those with low levels of trust. In other words, trust becomes a “moral resource” for school improvement.
Without a high-trust foundation, efforts to implement data-driven decision-making are likely to be met with resistance and, unfortunately, are likely to be ineffective. The paradox here is that the objective data appears only to be meaningful where the subjective relationships between adults are favorable. The best way to make use of the numbers may be to focus on the relationships between people.
Three schools exemplify success
The good news is that where there are higher levels of trust, strategic use of systematic assessments and data analysis does lead to significant improvements in student learning. Jefferson Elementary in the Carlsbad Unified School District (San Diego County) was identified as an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School in 1999 due to low levels of student achievement. Three-quarters of the students were of low socio-economic status and two-thirds were English learners.
After implementing a quarterly system of early literacy assessments and continuing to make adjustments based on student performance, the school’s Academic Performance Index has increased from 574 (1999) to 783 (2006). Jefferson Elementary was recognized as a Title I Distinguished School in 2003 and 2005, and also as a California Distinguished School in 2004.
According to Assistant Principal Jane Hartman, these improvements were catalyzed by public displays of assessment information from monthly benchmark assessments: “This open display strategy relied on a high level of trust between administration and faculty. It also served to enhance a culture of trust as colleagues began to celebrate one another’s successes,” Hartman said.
This year in Carlsbad, teams of administrators and teachers reviewed data management systems that were profiled on the Electronic Learning Assessment Resources Web site (www.clrn.org/elar). Next year, Carlsbad will launch a district-wide program to allow for online administration of common assessments. Building capacity within the leaders and teachers, via professional development opportunities, remains at the forefront.
They are still at the beginning stages of implementing a meaningful and consistent system for common assessments, and rapid adjustments to programs and instruction are being made as a result of that information. While often anxious to press forward, the need to slow down and build relationships and trust along the way will better optimize the effectiveness of their efforts.
Schools exit Program Improvement status
Two schools in San Jose Unified are among many in the district that have seen the use of data in high trust environments improve student achievement and progress toward an exit from Program Improvement sanctions. Almaden Elementary is currently in Safe Harbor, having increased its API from 633 in 2004 to 752 in 2006. Principal Miguel Montes attributes much of that success to one-on-one test chats with teachers about student performance. “The teachers and I are on the same page with data analysis. I sit down with each teacher and look at every student’s scores on the six yearly benchmark assessments and the CST scores from the year before. By looking at the data together, the teacher and I experience the same ‘ahas’ about each child,” Montes said.
From there, teachers identify four target students who were below basic on the CST to whom they will provide intensive support during the English-language arts universal access time. Six more students are selected by each teacher from those in the basic range to give additional attention to each day.
“Our successes come from the knowledge that we have of our children,” Montes said. “Discussions at grade-level meetings are about what we can do to support those target students. Because the teachers and I look at the students and where they are strong or weak in a non-blaming manner, the trust is built into the culture at Almaden.”
Data just another essential tool
Across town in downtown San Jose’s Horace Mann Elementary School, celebrations abound as a result of the staff’s hard work -— Horace Mann exited from Program Improvement status this past year. Principal Adam Escoto attributes this accomplishment to the use of data.
“Data is not used as a ‘gotcha,’” shared Escoto. “We have conversations about students after each benchmark, after the CELDT scores are tabulated, and when CSTs are released. We use data as a means to validate the efforts of the staff. Teacher-to-teacher conversations are about best practices, and data is just another essential tool in the toolbox of best practices.”
A few years back, Escoto sought out the leadership of a few teachers who were comfortable with using student performance figures to improve their classroom instruction. “I supported those teachers and helped them leverage their built-in credibility with their colleagues to convince others that using data to inform instruction is the easiest way to improve student achievement,” Escoto said.
The use of data is also part of the Horace Mann culture in a unique way – parents use it and expect teachers to use it as well. “Our parents understand that data is important, and it enables them to be more effective partners in the education of their children. There is an added accountability piece that comes from our parents, and our teachers see this as a positive, and receive so much positive reinforcement from parents to continue to use the data to support their children.”
Online (free) resources
Focusing on relationships and trust takes time. Since time is a precious resource for school leaders, a growing number of online resources are available to support the collective efforts to use data and assessments to improve student learning. The California Department of Education sponsors several very useful (and free) sites:
• California Learning Resource Network (www.clrn.org) has links for reviewed learning resources, assessment tools (ELAR) and Web links. The ELAR site has an excellent series of articles on data-driven decision-making (www.clrn.org/elar/researchArticles.cfm) that are a good starting point if you are just beginning the process.
• Technology Information Center for Administrative Leadership (www.portical.org) has sections devoted to data-driven decision-making. You may find the “tools and templates” to be particularly useful.
• The California Department of Education Web site has a link for “Data and Statistics” (www.cde.ca.gov/ds). From here you can access DataQuest (test scores, enrollment, etc.), EdData (financial information and district-comparison tools) and a Data Resource Guide.
Another recommended resource is the Microsoft Innovative Teachers Site. This has some useful tools, such as competency matrices and articles that provide an overview of the topic of data-driven decision-making (www.microsoft.com/education/ThoughtLeadersDDDM.mspx).
Steps toward transforming fear
Even if you began this article identifying with the convulsions and anxiety often associated with assessment, we hope you feel confident now that there are three important steps you can take to:
1. Focus on relationships and build trust. Consistency, compassion, communication and competence are the four key components in generating trust for school leaders.
2. Use conversations about data to celebrate progress and build trust. Be clear about the purpose and process for using data and common assessments — this is a reinforcement of the need to be consistent, compassionate, communicative and competent.
3. Use free resources that experts have created and provide at no cost to improve the efficiency of your efforts.
As your schools and districts implement these three steps, you will find that fear of data may be transformed to enthusiasm and excitement, leading to numerous opportunities to celebrate your collective accomplishments. Enjoy!
References
Brewster C. and Railsback, J. (2003). Building Trusting Relationships for School Improvement: Implications for Principals and Teachers. Northwest Educational Laboratory. ERIC document reproduction service, ED 481 987.
Bryk, A. and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York, NY: Russell Safe Foundation.
Gimbel, P. A. (2003). Solutions for promoting principal-teacher trust. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Schmoker, M. (1997). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA. The Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results Now: How Can We Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA. The Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Vodicka, D. (November 2006). “The Four Elements of Trust: Consistency, Compassion, Communication, and Competency.” Principal Leadership.
Devin Vodicka, a former elementary and middle school principal, is the director of Curriculum and Instruction for the Carlsbad Unified School District. Lisa Gonzales, a former principal in the San Jose Unified School District, is now an elementary principal in the Palo Alto Unified School District. Both are members of the TICAL Leadership Cadre. To find more technology resources to help you with data-driven decision-making, visit www.portical.org.