Educators have been looking in all the wrong places for answers to school improvement. 

 

Consider this joke and how it relates to schools examining data: 

A gentleman exited a restaurant late at night, and as he walked toward his vehicle, he saw a fellow hunched over beneath a street lamp, obviously searching for something. 

“Can I help you?” he asked.  

“Why, yeah, I’m looking for my keys.”  

They searched together for a while without luck.  

“Where did you drop your keys?” the Good Samaritan asked.  

“Over there in the alley,” he replied. 

“Then why are we looking here beneath this lamp?” 

“The light’s better,” he said. 

When it comes to data-based decision making, many educators are also looking in the wrong place. That’s one reason why this potentially powerful practice has too often underdelivered. Many schools rush headlong into analyzing data without considering if the data they’re reviewing is worth the effort, if other data might provide greater insight to opportunities for improvement, if shining the light elsewhere might prove more beneficial. School leaders haven’t ensured careful consideration of this question: Which data are most important for our improvement efforts? 

PDK_95_7_Benjamin_45_Art_554x350px

Educators have gotten little useful guidance about the data they should be collecting and which data would deliver the biggest bang for our buck. I say educators need some pretty simple and straightforward guidance:  

  • Review the evidence regarding powerful indicators/predictors of student achievement and well-being before collecting and analyzing performance data. What does the research reveal to be the top one or two factors that bear on math facts fluency, reading comprehension, propensity to drop out, success in algebra, success in college, etc.
  • Then, let the evidence guide you.

This process, which I call Evidence-Based Decision Making, will increase the odds that education improvement efforts will be successful. Data can lead to knowledge, knowledge to right action, and action to improvement (Figure 1), but the entire process turns on the quality of data that educators are examining.  

 PDK_95_7_Benjamin_45_tbl1

Table 1 provides a few examples of very important data — the type that should most concern teachers, principals, and students; the type that can truly fuel their improvement efforts. 

PDK_95_7_Benjamin_45_tbl2

PDK_95_7_Benjamin_45_tbl3

PDK_95_7_Benjamin_45_tbl4

Conclusion 

Using evidence effectively requires that educators become smarter about the relative importance and value of various data (based on the research), selecting high-quality measures, providing meaningful time for teachers to collaborate regarding their data, translating knowledge into strategies for improvement, using action research techniques to determine if strategies deliver continuous improvement, and linking  all of this with professional development, evaluation, reward, and recognition. But everything hinges on the rightness of the data under review. Paying proper attention to this core element will help us look in the right place for the keys to improvement in student learning. 

References 

Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying the standards that matter most. Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press. 

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271. 

Anderman, E.M. & Maehr, M.L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 287-309. 

Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.  

Bergin, C. & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 141-170. 

Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50 (7), 528-537. 

California Safe Schools Coalition. (2013). Safe schools research brief #7: School safety and academic achievement. San Francisco, CA: Author. www.casafeschools.org/FactSheet7final.pdf 

Celio, M.B. (2011). Risk/success in Seattle middle and high schools: A briefing for the Seattle City Council. www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/education/documents/MBC_LPC_Briefing2010r.pdf 

Conley, D.T. (2003). Understanding university success. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Center for Educational Policy Research. 

Crawford, D. (n.d.). The third stage of learning math facts: Developing automaticity. Baltimore, MD: Author. www.rocketmath.com/uploads/Math_Facts_Research.pdf 

Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). The relationship between Advanced Placement and college graduation. Iowa City, IA: National Center for Education Accountability. http://broadprize.org/symposium/2006BroadSymposiumRelationship
BetweenAPandCollegeGrad.pdf 

Duckworth, A.L. & Eskreis-Winkler, L. (2013, April). True grit. Observer, 2 (4). www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/april-13/true-grit.html 

Duncan, G.J., Dowsett, C.J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A.C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L.S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43 (6), 1428-1446. 

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405-432. Also see research housed at: www.casel.org/library/2014/1/29/meta-analysis-of-school-based-universal-interventions 

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 239-256. 

Furco, A. & Root, S. (2010). Research demonstrates the value of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (5), 16-20. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., Feldman, A.F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L.Z. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. www.bigsister.org/bigsister/file/Making%20a%20Difference%20in%20Schools.pdf 

Hunley, S.A., Davies, S.C., & Miller, C.R. (2013). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in oral reading fluency and high-stakes tests for 7th-grade students. Research in Middle Level Education, 36 (5), 1-8.  

International Reading Association. (IRA). (1998). Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading: A position statement from the board of directors. Newark, DE: Author. 

Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M.N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting 1st-grade math achievement from number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22 (1), 36-46. 

Kamil, M.L., Borman, G.D., Dole, J., Kral, C.C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc 

Kennelly, L. & Monrad, M. (2007). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early warning signs with appropriate interventions. Washington, DC: National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research. www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/usergd_dr.asp 

Lezotte, L.W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf 

Lezotte, L.W. & Pepperl, J.A.C. (1999). The effective schools process: A proven path to learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. 

Marzano, R.J. (December 2009/January 2010). The art and science of teaching/when students track their progress, Educational Leadership, 67 (4), 86-88. 

Massoni, E. (2011). Positive effects of extracurricular activities on students. ESSAI: 9, 27. http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=essai 

Montgomery County Public Schools. (2012, September). MCPS class of 2012 earns record-setting results on SAT. www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?id=3231&page=showrelease 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1995). Extracurricular participation and student engagement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95741.asp 

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2013, January). Screening briefs series-Brief #3: Predicting students at risk for reading and mathematics difficulties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention. http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20Screening%20Brief3-Predicting%20Students.pdf 

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors. 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.  

National Youth Leadership Council. (2010). Service-learning and academic achievement research summary. St. Paul, MN: Author. www.nylc.org/sites/nylc.org/files/SLResearchSummary.pdf 

Rosen, J.A., Glennie, E.J., Dalton, B.W., Lennon, J.M., & Bozick, R.N. (2010). Noncognitive skills in the classroom: New perspectives on educational research. RTI Press publication No. BK-0004-1009. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.  

Schmoker, M. (2007). Reading, writing, and thinking for all. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 63-66. 

Siegler, R.S., Duncan, G.J., Davis-Kean, P.E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A. Engel, M., Susperreguy, M.I., & Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23 (7), 691-697. 

SEDL. (2013). Reading resources/research evidence. Austin, TX: Author. www.sedl.org/reading/framework/research.html 

Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 758-765. 

Torgesen, J.K. & Mathes, P.G. (1998). What every teacher should know about phonological awareness. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. www.fldoe.org/ese/pdf/phon9872.pdf 

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 

Zumeta, R.O., Compton, D.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (2012). Using word identification fluency to monitor 1st-grade reading development. Exceptional Child, 78 (2), 201-220. 

 

 

Citation: Benjamin, S. (2014). Shifting from data to evidence for decision making. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (7), 45-49. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

default profile picture

Steve Benjamin

STEVE BENJAMIN  consults with teachers and administrators for the benefit of student learning.