Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement

Victoria L. Bernhardt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351587853
• Edition: 4
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement provides a new definition of school improvement, away from a singular focus on compliance, toward a true commitment to excellence. This book is a call to action. It is about inspiring schools and school districts to commit to continuous school improvement by providing a framework that will result in improving teaching for every teacher and learning for every student through the comprehensive use of data. A culmination of over 30 years of doing the hard work in schools and districts both nationally and internationally, Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement shares new, evidence-based learnings about how to analyze, report, communicate, and use multiple measures of data. The updated edition provides a wealth of tools, protocols, timelines, examples, and strategies that will help schools and districts become genuine learning organizations.

CHAPTER 1
FROM COMPLIANCE TO COMMITMENT:
USING DATA FOR CONTINUOUS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

You cannot force commitment. What you can do… you nudge a little here, inspire a little there, and provide a role model. Your primary influence is the environment you create.

Peter M. Senge
Author, The Fifth Discipline

What would it take to get learning growth for every student, every year, in your school?

I have started many workshops in my multi-decade consulting career by asking participants, “What would it take to get learning growth for every student, every year, in your school?” After deliberation with teammates, teachers and administrators tell me these things need to be in place:

1. Teachers and administrators must honestly review and use their data—All their data, not just study a gap here or there.

2. Teachers and administrators must truly believe that all children can learn, or learning cannot and will not happen.

3. There must be one vision for the school—we have to get everyone on the same page and moving forward together.

4. One plan to implement the school vision must be in place. We cannot implement multiple unrelated plans.

5. Curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments must be aligned to student learning standards. We will only spin in circles if we do not have this alignment.

6. Staff need to collaborate and use student, classroom, grade level, and school level data. Teachers need to work together to determine what they need to do to ensure every student’s learning.

7. Staff need professional learning to work differently when the data tell them they are not getting the results they want or that they might not be getting the results they expect. (Professional learning refers to ongoing, job-embedded, results-oriented learning for professional educators.)

8. Schools need to rethink their current structures as opposed to adding on to what is existing. (Structures include how curriculum and instruction are delivered. Add-ons are programs and interventions added to close a gap.)

What I do not hear is: “We have to study our gaps in performance using summative tests so we can make adequate yearly progress.” Educators know, intuitively and experientially, that focusing only on gaps in performance on one summative test will not get student learning improvements for all students, yet it is easy to get caught up in trying to make the work simpler. When asked what is the hardest to do of the eight things listed above, most school staff members say, “It is all hard; it all needs to be done. We don’t know how to do it all; therefore, we never have.” Then they say, “If we had to pick one thing that is the hardest, it would be honestly reviewing and using all our data, then making the appropriate changes.”

When only some data are used, the focus is typically on the gaps and improving individual students who are not achieving on the one measure that is used for compliance, and not on what or how teachers are teaching, or how to improve learning for ALL students.

It seems many schools do not have “working structures” in place to systematically and honestly review and then to use all their data to impact student learning results. Without a system or structure to review all the data, mostly external student learning compliance data are used. When only some data are used, the focus is typically on the gaps and improving individual students who are not achieving on that one measure that is used for compliance, and not on what or how teachers are teaching, or how to improve learning for all students. Without a system, structure, or vision in place to guide the use of all data, there is no new learning to change teacher attitudes, behaviors, or instruction—and ultimately improve student learning.

What would it look like if a school did all eight elements above? And what would be the outcomes? How can school staff do all these things within the confines of a school year? In order to get school staff to do all these things, we need to shift staff thinking about data use from simple compliance to a true commitment to improvement.

MOVING AWAY FROM A SINGULAR FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE, TOWARD A COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

When schools focus primarily on compliance, they tend to concentrate their school improvement efforts on what and how they are being measured.

When schools focus primarily on compliance, they tend to concentrate their school improvement efforts on what and how they are being measured. Consider, for example, elementary schools in the United States when the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability laws came into being in the early 2000s. Schools were measured on English Language Arts and Mathematics, only. Many schools believed that if they did well in Reading, everything else would follow. School days were reorganized to provide blocks of time for Language Arts. Many schools made incredible improvements in Language Arts because of that focus; however, Mathematics scores stayed pretty stagnant during that time. A few years later, many states changed their Mathematics tests to require students to show how they came up with their answers. To meet these new accountability requirements, schools scrambled to teach writing, math vocabulary, and math concepts. With the new focus, those scores improved. Sadly, the Language Arts scores tended to go down.

Fast forward a decade later. Schools were accountable, for the first time, in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Guess what we found? Science and Social Studies had not been taught in some schools in the previous ten years.

When schools focus only on one part of student learning, the others parts will fall apart. Similar scenarios were created when schools focused on specific subgroups of students not making proficiency, or on the “Bubble Kids.” “Bubble Kids” are students who perform just below proficiency. The thought is that by focusing on moving these students to proficiency, the school is sure to make Adequate Yearly Progress. Unfortunately, when schools focus only on a small group of students, the other students do not benefit.

Although efforts focused on one area or one student group caused increases to the detriment to other areas, many good things came from NCLB. Needs of student groups who never succeeded before were being met. Teachers learned they have to work together to get schoolwide gains—improvement in one grade level builds on the improvement of the previous grade levels. Schools learned that although they were being measured by one test, it takes more than just improving the results on that one test to get improvement throughout the school.

And now where are we? Schools are in great need of a framework for continuous school improvement and an assessment tool to tell them where they are in the process to help them stay focused on systemic improvement. When schools use a framework for continuous school improvement along with comprehensive data analysis, they understand how they are getting their results—what is working, and what is not working. They know the structures to have in place for continuous school improvement. When schools use a continuous school improvement self-assessment tool they know where they are in the process and how to get all their staff moving forward together.

Figure 1.1 shows the differences in actions on important measures between schools focused on compliance for accountability and schools that commit to using comprehensive data analysis for continuous school improvement.

Most of all, schools committed to using comprehensive data analysis to continuously improve their learning organization are able to blend creativity with discipline to create their future. Schools focused only on gaps and compliance can neither innovate nor create a future that looks different from the status quo. Such an approach inhibits systemic improvement and limits progress toward excellence and real equity.

When schools use a framework for continuous school improvement, along with comprehensive data analysis, they understand how they are getting their results—what is working, and what is not working.

Figure 1.1
DIFFERENCES IN ACTIONS BETWEEN SCHOOLS FOCUSED ON COMPLIANCE AND SCHOOLS COMMITTED TO USING DATA FOR CONTINUOUS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Key Components	Schools Focused on Compliance for Accountability…	Schools Committed to Using Data for Continuous School Improvement…
Data Analysis	Blame students for poor results (e.g., our results are not very good because our population lives in po...