Posts
Don't even get me started on this one! I'm in a district that places heavy emphasis on being "data driven". In spite of this emphasis, teachers don't have access to much of the data. They are either lacking hardware, privileges, or timeliness to make it accessible and relevant. This is all before we get to the training issues.
Worse, let's say your data tells you that Johnny is in the sixth grade and can't add, there is no system in place to do anything about it. Sure, you can try to get him to stay late for help or you can differentiate in class (at the expense of what he's supposed to be current with). But, there is no way (especially with 50% of your kids in this condition) to get Johnny remediated.
As long as curriculum fills every inch of available space, teachers aren't going to use objective data to replace subjective data when neither can be used as a force for change.
Interesting.
Tell us more if you get a chance.
And thanks!
more fun with numbers
data-driven instruction redux
data-driven loops & noise
2 comments:
This is a big topic but I'll take the hook....
There are two kinds of data loop in play. The first, I'll call loop 1. The second I'll call loop 2.
Loop 1 is the "We've measured your school's performance and found it lacking" loop. This is aggregated data that has been massaged to produce your AYP (measure of Adequate Yearly Progress, Mass. MCAS). From this measure, schools are to produce a School Improvement Plan (SIP) which is basically goal setting sans concomitant resources to actually effect a change. Since the SIP is a dead end, that particular loop looks more like a croquet wicket. It's not a loop at all.
Loop 2 is the "Your last year's students failed MCAS" loop which is given to teachers about 5 months after the students in question have left your embrace. Usually this is aggregated also, at least in my school it was handed to us on a printout. I had granularity down to the question but not down to the student.
Somewhere in this measurement system is precise, standard by standard knowledge of each student's current (actually 5 month old) ability. We don't get that.
The real problem is that loop 1 should be used for "oh my, I think we need a remediation here" and it is used for "oh my, time to reset the goal posts." If loop 1 is not used to drive some kind of structural change, then anything you learn (and you can't learn much) in loop 2 becomes a 'nice to know' kind of thing but it doesn't fix Johnny's inability to add.
Data not acted upon is noise and old data is rancid.
This is fantastic!!
Thank you!!!
Post a Comment