If you've spent more than a year as an educator then you’ve experienced it. Most often, the attack happens in the fall, but not exclusively. People attend the event willingly, often complacently. They’ve seen it before. The creaky overhead projector, the nearly illegible photocopies of charts and graphs, the furtive glances, the mind numbing exhortations of the data junkies as to "what this means." Sometimes there’s a bit of drama. A grade level team feels attacked; a principal sees her school being singled out. Emotions can flare, but then sputter out quickly. Time passes. The meeting is over. People shuffle back to their classrooms. The doors slam shut. Back to business as usual.
The data meeting just described is a time-honored tradition in our schools. The results are hauled out, explained to varying degrees of complexity and imposed on those responsible for them. Sometimes the data is used to berate, sometimes as an excuse for poor performance and sometimes as a way to fill the September 23rd faculty meeting. Yet, rarely does this data meeting lead to action. Too often, “looking at our data” is not organized in a way to impact classroom instruction.
Over the last seven years, we have worked with hundreds of schools throughout North America and overseas. In many of these schools, we have witnessed school leaders who have changed the way they worked with their data. They have changed their “data meetings” into reviews of students’ performance that drives action for improved instruction. How do they do it? They build their strategy around four simple steps.
Step 1
Start a frank and honest assessment of current reality based on data.
No surprises here. These leaders started in the most basic of places. They asked people to sit down together and look at what the data said about their current reality. They did not attempt to over dramatize, nor marginalize the picture that the data painted. They worked hard with folks to look at the “facts” presented by the data. Through careful facilitation, they helped people to identify “just the facts.” They used simple concrete questions such as:
What number and percentage of students scored at what levels?
How does that information compare to the school or district data?
They gave people simple and easy-to-read data and had them discover the answers to these questions and then write them down. This basic paper and pencil exercise is a key element in making these sessions useful. Instead of a talking head up-front, analyzing the data for them and then spitting out the findings, this process allowed the group to work together at arriving at answers to their own questions. The act of actually writing their findings down cemented the information in a concrete way folks would remember. They did not, however, stop their work here. They used this grounding in current reality to help set the stage for what was next.
| "The act of actually writing their findings down cemented information in a concrete way folks would remember." |
Step 2
Set rigorous SMARTe goals for the improvement of student learning.
These leaders again used some simple key questions to help their people think about where they wanted to be by the end of the year. They asked questions like:
What is our goal for our students?
What percentage of students do we want to be proficient or above by June?
What percentage of students do we want to be proficient or above by June as a grade level?
What percentage of students do we want to be proficient or above by June in my classroom?
These key question sparked discussion and debate. It raised issues of expectations and beliefs in student and teacher efficacy. The leader was key in making sure these discussions lead to goals that they believed in, and could stand by with pride. When weak draft goals were offered, such as, “Only 3% of our students will improve this year,” the leaders would parrot them back to their staff and ask them if that was good enough. More than one principal helped their staff frame the issue as families would see it. “Imagine telling your families at back-to-school night that this year we expected 3% of our students to improve.” What about the other 97%? We’d all hope our student was in the 3% improving group. Generally the school that developed the strongest goals followed a formula that Focus on Results has adapted for educational use. They used the acronym SMARTe to litmus test their goals.
A solid goal should be:
| S.M.A.R.T.eGoals: | |
| S = Specific | States exactly what is to be accomplished. |
| M = Measurable | Can be objectively assessed – states the expectation numerically in percents or quantities. |
| A = Attainable | Can reasonably expect to accomplish the goal in the amount of time provided with the resources available yet is also a challenge to the organization. |
| R = Relevant | This is an important goal that is essential for success in improving student achievement. |
| T = Timely | How long, how often, at specific times, and other issues of time are clearly addressed. |
| E = Every Student | The goals touch every student and expect every student to show measurable growth in student learning. |
| E = Every Student | The goals touch every student and expect every student to show measurable growth in student learning. |
One example of what a solid goal looked like in practice:
100% of our students will show improvement in their writing ability as demonstrated by the district-wide writing prompt administered three times a year for grades K-12.
No less than 75% of students will show growth to the next performance level. The remaining 25% will show growth within their performance level.
Step 3
Turn the data numbers into real students that cannot be ignored.
These leaders took the conversation to the next important step. They asked staff to move beyond setting the goal. They asked folks to take the numbers and turn them into real students whose faces they saw nearly every day. They worked at creating a personal connection with these students to help people realize they were not simply meeting a goal. They were working to transform students’ lives. They asked questions such as:
What are the names of the students who performed best on the most recent measure?
What instructional practices are being used with those students?
What are the names of the students who performed in the lowest categories on the most recent measure?
What instructional practices are being used with those students?
Do any patterns appear concerning those students? (e.g. gender, race, primary language, etc.)
| “They asked staff to move beyond setting the goal. They asked folks to take the numbers and turn them into real students whose faces they saw nearly every day.” |
They did not simply ask the questions and let them fall into an unfocused intellectual conversation that did not follow to action. Instead, they provided staff with some clear instructions and a concrete protocol to structure this conversation. The following example comes from a school with one such protocol.
| First | Each teacher brings his/her own local assessment data to the team meeting. Be sure everyone in the group is familiar with the data and can make sense of the information provided. |
| Then | Each teacher works independently to identify how many students are scoring at each level in each category, using the Using Data to Drive Action Graphic Organizer. |
| Next | Each teacher works independently to identify the names of students scoring at each level in each category, using the Using Data to Drive Action Graphic Organizer. |
| Finally | The team reviews each teacher’s data chart to discuss the following questions:
|
| Last | Complete the final section of the Using Data to DriveAction Graphic Organizer. |
The use of this protocol, or another like it, helped the leaders define, organize and support teachers as they worked through the data. These facilitated meetings helped teachers use their time on activities that were productive for them. It fostered increased collaboration and dialog as well as improving the quality of supports that were developed for students.
Step 4
Create plans for those students and hold people accountable for following through.
Even the best of team meetings, with the greatest protocol, the most insightful and collaborative conversation that produces seemingly the most brilliant plans, often comes to naught if folks are not supported and held accountable to follow through. Who is committing to do what by when, and when will we meet again to check on progress? These leaders built into their plans a way to do just that. They scheduled follow-up meetings. They visited classrooms to support teachers and check on students’ progress. They asked these essential questions:
What changes in instruction could improve student learning for students scoring in the lowest categories?
What additional support or interventions do these students need?
Okay, if this is true then . . .
What instructional strategies do we agree to try with students scoring in the lowest levels?
What support/interventions will we provide for students scoring in the lowest levels?
On what date will we meet again to discuss what we are learning as a result of trying these teaching strategies and creating these interventions and supports? (No more than two weeks.)
What additional resources or professional development might be needed to implement adjusted instructional practice?