1 Corinthians 14:40
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
40 But everything should be done in a way that is right and orderly.
1 Peter 5:2-3
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
2 take care of the group of people you are responsible for. They are God’s flock.[a] Watch over that flock because you want to, not because you are forced to do it. That is how God wants it. Do it because you are happy to serve, not because you want money. 3 Don’t be like a ruler over those you are responsible for. But be good examples to them.
Roadway to GDSC- Session 1 Powerpoint Presentation
Trinity Kings World Leadership: Family Franchising Systems: Creating A Culture of Data...
1. 'ii
t.
t,
.t
,i
'l
:a
..:.1
6
o
E
E
o
o
d,
CON-[ET{TS
2 Sates kpanded
Availability and Uses of
Sudent K-12 Data, New
Report Sys
3 Hucators&port on
Useq Wish List for
Sudent Data in K-12
4 &port Que$ions
$$ainabiliiy of
Longitudinal
Sudent-Data Systems
5 $aled-Back FEFFA
Overhaul lntroduced in
U.S House
COmmENTa r y
6 TooMuchofaGood
Thing:Making Data
Abrk for Shools
7 Rrtting K-12 Data in the
Rght Handq at the
Rght Time
9 ls H. Data a Fitbit or a
fo*-Mortem?
Creating a CLllture
of htaEditols Note: The incrercing Lvdlftilit uof
student dtrXiscGrting debtle ovefthow to
effectivel!use t he info !n trion to d dve dist t]ct
decisions. ln this Spotlight, explo& how st [es
iG developing govemRlce stnlctutssto guide
dtr!collection &d use, consideilhe difficult
biDtcing rct between dtr!collection Drd
pmvtbUconcems, thd leltlr how so! e eductroB
!B ! i<ing d Il lwo* in theilschools.
2. Educat ion WEEKSpotlight on creating a Glltureof Data edweek.org
Published November 20,2014, in Education Week's State EdWatch Blog
Sates Expand ed Availab ility
and Ussof Sudent K-12 Data,
New Fbport Says
ByABrEv Ujmsa
he number ofstates that provide
data to parents allowing them to
track their children's academic
progress has more than doubled
in the last three years from eight to 17,
while more than 100 bills designed to bet-
ter safeguard student data were consid-
ered in states, according to a recent report
from the Washington-based Data Quality
Campaign.
The'Data for Action 20l4"report from
the group, which advocates for the avail-
ability and use of student data to improve
K-l2 achievement, was released Wednes-
day. It catalogues how an increasing
number ofstates are working to expand
access to data among teachers, parents,
and across state agencies, including those
dealing with workforce and economic is-
sues.
'The story really is a very positive one,"
said Aimee Guidera, the founder and ex-
ecutive director ofthe group, in a confer-
ence call with reporters.
For its report, the campaign lists l0
"state actions"that the group believes
will help states and public schools better
ntllize data and share information more
broadly and appropriately with the gen-
eral public. Within each ofthose l0 catego-
ries there are also sub-categories where
states can show that they are using data
more effectively, according to DQC.
The group compared 2014 to 201 I when
analyzing how many states were meeting
those 10 recommended actions. The group
announced that this year Kentucky be-
came the third state to meet all of those
actionS, joining Arkansas and Delaware-
the group noted that in 2011, Kentucky
had completed just two of the 10 recom-
mended actions. Among those actions are:
n Llirk sttrn K-12 dElsystRrs wfth Ely
l[rnmg, [btscrdry, wr'kfrcE Dd nhr
crffi fl sttr[ Ql]cy dtrEsystllrB
Nineteen states have completed this ac-
tion in 2014, DQC said, compared to 1l
in 201 l. However, 43 states do share and
match K-12 data with postsecondary data
annually, compared to 38 three years ago.
Interestingly, the number ofstates that
do the same for K-12 and early childhood
data dipped from46to43.
The number ofstates (19) that do this
matching for K-12 and workforce data
remains relatively low, and Guidera said
this remained one of the biggest chal-
lenges when it come s to using data across
sectors.
n d&E[lglfvrnftcllstruJcJurlb figudt]dEIt
cdlrbtttlh thd usE
The number of states completing this ac-
tion rose from 36 in 201 I to 42 this year.
In one sub-category,43 states had cross-
agency data governance committees with
some form of authority in2014, compared
to 39 three years ago.
n Oftr[ rryrrss rfmts wtFr studrrt-l wd
dtrnftr tdrctrtrs, stLdmts, thd mmts
Thirty-five states now do this in some
form, comparedto29 in 2011. Forty-two
states now produce reports that utilize
student-1eve1 lon gitudinal data.
The privacy ofstudent data could con-
tinue to be a major issue in state legis-
latures in 2015, as it was in 2014, when
several states restricted how student data
could be used in a variety of ways. Mean-
while, Google3 data-mining of student
users'emails through its Apps for Edu-
cation has highlighted ongoing concerns
about how companies will treat student
data when they deal with public schools.
States that provide
datato parents
allowing them to
track their children's
academic progress
has more than
doubled in the last
three years from
eight to 17
17 stat es
8 stat es
So Ur ce: DaE Q.dry canpaEf
3. Educfots r epoffi
on Uses, Wish List
fo[$udent Df I
tnl{J2
ByMmflEM[[aE
Philadelphia
ducators have a long wish list for the
use ofstudent data, and their own use
oftectrnology, including more training in
both areas.
Those are among the Drdings in a new analy-
sis ofhow educators view their schools'and dis-
tricts'use oftechnology and student data. The
research was released Tuesday by the Education
Technology Industry Network ofthe Software &
Information Industry Association at ISTE 2015.
In general, the study found that the most
critical unmet needs for K-l2 educators are:
n Continuous access to adequate bandwidth
n Access to the level oftechnology resources
common to other professionals
n Training in technology that is available to
other professionals
The organizationb 2015 Vision K-20 Survey
Report measures schools' and colleges' self-
reported progress toward technology and e-
learning adoption. More than 1,000 educators
answered the survey for this yeart research,
and most were from K-12 schools.
The survey found that schools 'hre mak-
ing slow but steady progress toward reach-
ing their instructional and operational goals
through the use oftechnology, including in-
creased use ofstudent data," accordilglo a
release from the organization.
The Vision K-20 Survey is an annual online
self-assessment hosted on the SIIA3 Vision
K-20 website for educators and educational
leaders fu K-12 classrooms, schools, and dis-
tricts and postsecondary courses, depart-
metrts, and campuses. The survey gauges
respondents' progress using 37 benchm ark
statements identiled as part ofthe SIIA Vi-
sion K-20 goals and measures.
This is the eighth year the SIIA has sur-
veyed educators across the U.S. on these
topics. From a longitudinal perspective, this
yeart results show an increase in the follow-
ing benchmarks:
n Online access
n Institutiotral leaders'use oftechnology tools
n Use ofonline assessments
n Delivery ofdigital educational content
n Interactivity of multimedia in struction al m a-
terials
n dm!!mm ailllD/dEofK-12,mldmm[otDfmun-d@flnrckmdrnrpmomtrc[
:, sDomnm ffi i[pDv[irmucfibB mthot^rniEffiilgmph:
n K-12 Diffic! Kl2: Most lmportantways Digital student Data
Currently Used
fr ucat ion WEEK gotl ight on Creating a Orltureof Data' edweek-org
Published July 1,2015, in Education Weekb
Marketplace K:12, Blog
tBtkSEdryffiiarm
impm/!m[umm
idrysmdrrrmamrllrlra [rds
r Ptrffi mhma& pTmTnnan-n mduDrmn [flTlrlls
etrabl ! pam m mil( sDd [tprr]lrrfrlarfn
pgmalEts$drrflDlTnTU
h s*ondary
?0406080
%of BArticiBAntS
100
n elm trlmm Bumucmmmffimwtffnommfrdry iEho/ m ummErrnm q ttu nom
:: srcom!m rchdcf, &ppomnhm.ohmryrmducffirtE[-noppom[rrTn6 iDffrmmE
n K-12 Dimcn ffiDtorfrfnof ftrlmdrr[dmncolltEuH tfltdttrolmTrnd o[hiEg&h:
Wrys to lncrease Effective Use of DigitalStudent Data
i mllhsd mmE mustrdaa sys[l]rls
E*X
&wre
wmXM
-
wl
xeffi3
KM
'*mxeffiru
K&
ff%n seornrary
K4
tt4
l+
?o40@80
o/oof mrticimntS
etrabr !s&d rrrs m [,ft n^,o prmm"- &l@E&@{m"
h.r *n t", y, t- 12 o ist r ict
imml sth[ydEm,,iftimsmmak*
$@- h seondary
sipprlrmBEmh m mpm/! m[Iltrffi mmrrulum
BASe: elrm[trry f=292 $] rrdary r=29,
K-12Dsmrr=St5.
qec@c=
sEfmilIy hEh[lhaf K-12 rduhnrr
ltrr'f, LdraEd afhf 9570 rrLdffilfvd.
Mmmrmd *rp,t'*tats.**,. @$
Bmllt]atres mdaBqF[rns
Mmsmm/agrylradGhp
M mwd ily adQffi mhrnbl datr strtdads
M rm m/Gmrrr[n da[l sysffins
M m mdn-rn mdaE pmary atd sm.rry
omm
B,qSe: drn[Ery f=304, Srrmda[, f=298,
K-12DBfirrrf=317
tup,@E SEfLxa[[y hEh[thar K- t2 trluram
lfvd trdmEl afihf 95% rrrtr(lrrrflfvd.
100
4. l
Educat ion WEEKSpotlight on Creating a Glltureof Data i edweek.org
Published December 23,2014,in Education Week's Inside School Research Blog
Fbport Q uestions S,lstainab ility of
Long itud inal Sudent-Data ry$ems
BySaBh D. $aks
est Virginia has just launched
a web site, ZoomWV, intended
to make it easier to use its
massive lon gitudinal student
database, but a recent U.S. Government Ac-
countability OIEce report suggests it and
other states could have difnculty making
the bridge between K-l2 experiences and
lotrg-term student outcomes.
The Charleston Daily Mail reported that
West Virginia's $1.54 million data site will
allow parents, researchers, and the public
to see'rhere the state and each county and
school stands in terms of enrollment, as-
sessment results, and graduation and atten-
dance rates"both overall and disaggregated
by student groups in K-12.
But West Virginia, like many other states,
has difLculty matching individual educa-
tion records to students'later results in the
workforce, according to a GAO report.
The GAO found that most of the 48 states
that received some of the more than $640
million in federal grants since 2013 through
the Statewide Lotrgitudinal Data Systems
(SLDS) or Workforce Data Quality Initiative
(WDQI) programs could match at least some
individual students from early childhood all
the way through K-12, higher education, and
into the workforce. Yet, the report noted, "as
the match rate-that is, the percent ofunique
student records reliably cotrnected between
databases-increases, the number of grantees
able to matdr data between sectors decreases."
Workforce data seemed to be a big sticking
point, the GAO found, because several states
had laws limiting whether, say, a student3 So-
cial Security number could be used to idertify
him or her for such purposes. The few states
that could match students'educational and
workforce data holistically, such as Washing-
ton and Pennsylvania, reported concerns that
there is rot enough federal funding to sustain
the continued data collection needed to keep
the systems running properly.
The long-term health ofthe student-data
systems is important, the GAO found, be-
cause states overwhelmingly are using the
systems to conduct research and inform
policy in several ways, including:
Figure 'l : Number of SLDS or A/DQI Grantees with the Ability to Match Data from
Early Education to Workforce, 2013
lldch mb
Any ll.l00!()
75Pi6 and over
lS/6 rndov.r
0510t5fr
l{umbor af iILOS or WDQI gr€rtoo3
Ml ="rt,
*ucation to K-'!2 to worldo.E€
I *n ' oucalion to K-12 to posis€cordai? to f,olldorce
Sgurs: GAO enalyslt ot 2013 Oata QuElily Gailp€igll (OOC] But'roy dil*. I GAO'It27
Notes: We analyzed data on the 48 states that received a State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS)
grant, a Workfoice Data Quality lnitiative (WDQI) grant, or both and responded to the 2013 DQC
survey. Matching is defined as reliably connecting the same individual record in two or more
databases. The match rate is the percent of unique individual records that are matched. We
considered a grantee as matching data between sectors if a grantee matched data from at least one
program between sectors.
So Ur c e: GfvffinEArrtruftrbfiq, o rrrr
n Forty-five grantee states provided M. Nowicki, the director of GAO's educa-
feedback to high schools on how their tion, workforce, and income-security issues,
students fared after graduation; 'lnaximizing the potential of these systems
will rest, in part, with the ability to more
n27 analyzedthe college and career readi- fully match information on specific pro-
ness oftheir emerging workforce; grams and characteristics of individuals
that could help in further analyzing educa'
n 29 could flag individual students who tion and workforce outcomes."
showed early signs of disengagement or
risk ofdropping out ofschool; and
n 39 created research agendas based on cur-
rent problems in educational policy and
practice that could be studied using the
data systems.
"As grantees continue to relhe their sys-
tems," concluded report author Jacqueline
35
5. frucation WEEKSpotlight on Creating a Cultureof Data edweek.org
Published Iily 22,2015, in Education Week's Digital Education Blog
U.S. Attorney General for possible sanction.
'1 think it re[ects a desire for third-party
actors to be accountable," Zeide said. 'tsut I
think it may be more efEcient to use more di-
rect methods,"such as a separate law speciD
cally targeting vendors, she added.
Updfing FtrFa fofthedigitil ee
Key for many on all sides of the student-
data-privacy debate is that the new bill would
redeDre what constitutes a student's "educa-
tional record"under federal law to include
"those records, files, documents, and other
materials" about a student that are '1nain-
t ained, electron ically, digitally, or phys ically."
Scaled -Back FEFPA Overhaul
lntroduced in U.S Hous
ByBfiarnmHmd
ong-awaited bipartisan legislation
introduced in the U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives Wednesday would sig-
niDantly reshape the country's most
prominent student-data-privacy law, but stop
short ofthe radical makeover that lawmakers
had proposed earlier this spring.
The 'Student Privacy Protection Act" aims
to expand the scope ofstudent information
that is protected by law, place new obliga-
tions on both educational institutions and
third parties who handle that information,
and ban the use of such information for direct
advertising to students. It would also allow
for hes of up to $1.5 million on educational
institutions that violate the law
The bill, ifenacted, would represent a
meaningful update tothe Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act. As currently written,
FERPA, as the 41-year old law is commonly
known, is widely viewed as inadequate for
addressing the privacy challenges presented
by the Eood ofdigital devices, software, and
apps intoU.S. schools over the past decade.
'Unfortunately, legal safeguards over stu-
dent privacy have not kept pace with the
rapid technological changes taking place in
America's classrooms,"said Rep. Todd Rokita,
RJnd., in a statement issued by the educa-
tion and workforce committee of the U.S.
House. "The bipartisan reforms in this bill
will strengthen privacy protections to ensure
schools can provide a 2lst century education,
while keeping their students'personal infor-
mation safe and secure."
a flumof pmposed
st ud ent-d tr Dp ifrvtJ leg isl tt ion
Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohiq co-sponsored
the bill, which comes amid a Drrry of pro-
posed federal legislation on the hot-button
issue of student-data privacy.
Two other bills currently before Congress
also seek to modernize FERPA. The Student
Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act of
2015, introduced in the House in April with
White House backing, would create an en-
tirely new law.
None of the bills have yet come up for a
vote.
Reaction on the Rokita-Fudge FERPA revi
sion was generally warm, although some ex-
pressed reservations about particular aspects
ofthe bill.
'1t provides some really important provi-
sions that would create more transparency,
which is essential for people to be able to
trust how schools and outsiders handle stu-
dent information," said Elana Zeide, a privary
research fellow at New York University's In-
form ation Law Insitute.
'Tlowever, [the bill would] place a heavy
burden on schools to oversee third-party
practices in a way that lh not sure is practi-
It
Unfortunately, legal safeguards over student privacy have
not kept pace with the rapid technological changes taking
place in America's classrooms."
Bp. ToDRol(Ta, R-lnd
cal,"Zeide said.
The bill comes three months after Reps.
John Kline, R-Minn. and Bobby Scott, D-Va.,
(the chair and ranking member ofthe educa-
tion and workforce committee, respectively)
released a "discussion draft"ofa far-reaching
proposal to radically remake FERPA from top
to bottom.
Cone from that earlier version are provi-
sions that would have allowed parents to
opt-out ofsome uses oftheir children3 data,
including many types of research studies
that are commonly conducted today. Also
eliminated is a provision that would have au-
thorized the U.S. Departmetrt of Education
to levy lnes directly on educational service
providers who violate FERPA.
Under the newly proposed Student Privacy
Protection Act, such violators would be re-
ferred to the Federal Trade Commission or
The move to include digital records is widely
seen as necessary in the modern age.
Generating more unc€rtainty are provi-
sions that would place new obligations on
schools.
The Rokita-Fudge bill, for example, would
require schools and other educational agen-
cies to keep a record of"each individual,
agency, or organization...that have obtained
access to a student's educational record,"as
well as the purpose for which sudr access was
granted.
Schools and other educational agencies
would also be mandated to establish new se-
curity practices for protecting students' infor-
mation;require that third parties with access
to students'education records also maintain
such security practices; establish breach no-
tilcation policies and procedures; and desig-
nate an ofEcial'?esponsible for mairtaining
6. Education WEEKSpotlight on Creating a Cultureof Data edweek.org
the security of i"tg.pducation records."
Educational agencies who break the law
would be subject to hes ranging tom $100
to $ I ,500,000 (and not to exceed I 0 percent
oftheir annual budget), depending on the
severity of their violation.
'1t's important to recognize that all this
would be new"for teachers and school ad-
ministrators, said Paige Kowalski, the vice
president for policy and advocacy at the
nonpro[I Data Quality Campaign, which
advocates for effective use ofeducational
data.
'We should expect privacy and security,
but [these provisions] beg the question
of how we are going to do this well, given
schools' current capacity," she said.
Cutious rerction f[on
the edtech industnE
Itt not just schools that would be affected
by FERPA ifthe Rokita-Fudge bill becomes
law
Outside providers would be prohibited
from getting contracts with educational
agencies ifthey have "a policy or practice
ofusing, releasing, or otherwise providing
access to personally identiEable informa-
tion in the education record ofa student"
for advertising purposes or for the develop-
ment of unapproved commercial products
or services.
The proposed legislation also aims to
directly prohibit all parties from using in-
formation gained via access to a student's
education record to'tnarket or otherwise
advertise directly to students."
Not surprisingly, the Software & Informa-
tion Industry Association, one ofthe lead-
ing trade associations representing the ed-
tech industry, reacted cautiously.
"SIIA will work closely with the com-
mittee to ensure the Student Privacy Pro-
tection Act does not create a regulatory
environment that prevents students and
schools from having access to increasingly
essential technologies," said Mack Mac-
Carthy, the vice president ofpolicy for the
group, in a statement.
A spokeswoman for the House Education
& the Workforce Committtee's Republican
majoriiy said lawmakers had taken input
on the discussion draft ofthe bill seriously.
'TVe received feedback on the discussion
draft from various stakeholders-parents,
educators, technology companies, and
privacy advocates," said committee press
secretary Lauren Blair Aronson via email.
"[We] believe the legislation introduced
today renects their feedback and strikes
the right balance between protecting stu-
dent privacy and supporting 2lst century
learning opportunities."
Published January 27,2015, in Education WeekTeacher
COmmentary
Making Data Work for Schools
By&smMukfl
Justin Minkel teaches 1st,2nd,and 3rd grade
at J ones Elementary in Springdalg Ark.,
a high-performing high-poverty public school where
85 percent ofthe students are English-language
learners. Minkel is the 2007 Arkansas Teacher ofthe
Year. Follow him on Twitter: @ustinMinkel.
Too Much of a Good Thing:
ata is absolutely useless. It's what
you do with it that matters.
Teachers know this, ofcourse. But
in an era when data is the coin of
the realm, we have seen persistent mnfusion
on the part of some legislators, policymakers,
and administrators about what data can and
cant do.
Data can give useful information to par-
ents, teachers, and kids about what students
know, what they dont, and how much growth
theyVe made. It can highlight strengths and
weaknesses on the part ofindividual teadlers,
schools, districts, states, and nations.
Data can also highlight kids lost in the
mean-{he small numbers of English-learners,
high-poverty students, or Afr ican-American
children who may be struggling in a school
where the majority ofstudents are doing Dre.
What data cant do is k any ofthe problems
it unearths. It cant make a kid smarter, a
teacher more effective, or a state more commit-
ted to its gowing numbers ofEnglishJearners.
Obvious, right? Not to everyone.
At a meeting of state education chairs last
summer, I made the case for a shift that every
teacher I know would support. Take away some
ofthe money that goes into developing tests,
administering and scoring tests, and monitor-
ing the test-takers and test-givers so they don t
ctreat. Then put it instead into all those things
that actually help students get smarter-{ike
tutoring home libraries, and meaningful pro-
fessional development for teachers.
One ofthe state chairs told me,'Iilell, the rea-
son we keep giving so many tests is that wete
not seeing the results we want."
I responded with a bastardized Arkansan
version ofthe'feeding the elephant"metaphor:
'If I keep weighing my pig, but I never feed
my pig, I might get fustrated. 1 keep weigh-
ing this darn pig but it's not getting any fat-
ter!'Testing kids over and over will never make
them smarter."
Ju mn m ifkd wolktrwith ! mldtrtrn
WeVe seen this phenomenon ever since the
advent ofNo Child Left Behind: a glut ofmoney
going to the dull business ofstandardized test-
ing, a lack of investment in those things that
make schools stronget and a student achieve-
ment needle that has barely budged by most
reputable (i.e. NAEB PISA) measures.
mtking Df lwok
So data itselfis useless. But in the hands of
skilled teachers and principals, the right data
can translate into powerful changes for kids.
My school was one of a handful in the nation
protred this month by a t=lm oew from the U.S.
Department ofEducation. The briefvideo high-
lights the way our staffuses data to help high-
poverty kids achieve, thrive, and go on to lead
the lives they dream. Itb well worth the four
minutes it will take you to watch: Improving
Education:The View from Jones Elementary
School.
What can teachers, principals, and policy-
makers do to make sure that data is a boon,
not a bludgeon, to the students it's intended to
serve? Here are three thoughts; I'd love to hear
your own.
Whtr TeEheBCBr Do
We need to make sure we spend as much
time analyzing data as we do gathering it.
Given the time crunch all teachers experience
on a daily basis, that3 often diflcult to do.
A few months back, I did the Fountas and
7. r-
Educat ion WEEKSpoil ight on Creating a Grltureof Data edweek.org
Pinnell BenchB_ark Reading Assessment_
which takes 1b'6r l5 minutes per student-
with eadr c,hild in my class. I recorded the re-
sults and turned them in to my principal. Then
I jammed the thick stack of stapled paper into a
manila folder, stuck the folder in the top drawer
of my filing cabinet, and pretty much forgot
about it for a few weeks.
Finally I made the time to pull it out and go
through the results. I listed the groups ofkids
who need guided reading lessons on various
sp eci [c skills : trtency, comprehension, strate_
gies for unknown words, certain phonics pat-
terns, inferential questions, and so on. Next
month, I1l mix up my guided-reading block to
meet with groups organized by specific skill
rather than level.
_
Un-til the Dst day I meet with those groups,
the four hours I spent giving the assessment
will have been utterly useless. yes, I completed
the assessments with Edelity. I recorded the
scores on report cards and on that sheet for my
principal. But there has been no beneD to my
students yet, and there wont be until I trans-
late all that data into individualized teaching
that gives each student what she or he needs.
I did a [he job weighing the pig. I just havent
gotten around to feeding it yet.
Whtr PtftrcipdsCm Do
The job of a principal has become close to
impossible. I am in awe ofprincipals like mine
who somehow balance the mountain of logis-
tics, the competing demands of district, state,
and federal policies, and the needs ofstudents,
their families, and their teachers.
That said, even excellent principals some-
times devote too mudr time to making sure as-
sessments are administered, and not enough
time making sure that teachers have the
knowledge, time, and tools to translate that
data into more efective instruction.
So far this yeat my students have taken four
computerized tests, two Fact Fluency assess_
metrts, the Benchmark Reading Assessment,
several grade-level phonics assessments, vari-
ous district literacy tasks, and a one-on-one as-
sessment oftheir oral English.
Every one of these assessments took time
away ftom instruction. That doesnt mean giv-
ing them was a bad idea. Eadr assessment fur-
nished me with useful information about what
my students understand and what they dont,
and unlike the state Benchmark exams, the
data was available immediately.
But too much of a good thing can be a bad
thing. There have been times this year when
the testing-to-tea&ing ratio tilted too far to the
testing side.
Principals need to make sure theyle get_
ting that balance right. Any assessment the
kids take needs to translate into more effedive
teaching and learning. Ifthat doesnt happen,
the hours taken from teaching time wont be
worth the saqiDe.
Whtr Folicm fteGCm Do
Principals and superintendents dont have
a choice about many ofthe tests they give. In
April, my students will take the Iowa Test of
Basic Skills (ITBS) and no one seems to know
why.
The test gives almost no useful information,
and the results tend to align very closely with
the socioeconomic status and native language
ofthe students who take it, regardless oftho;e
students' actual abilities in reading, writing,
and math.
Many high-performing nations dont test
every year. They choose quality over quantity,
administering befler, more expensive assesi_
ments, but testing less tequently. These assess-
ments go beyond basic'!ick-the-right bubble,,
skills a monkey could do in order to measure
the more complex abilities that tend to deter-
mine success in college, a career, and life.
We are asking tests to do too many things:
give useful information to parents;motivate
students; evaluate tea&ers; rank schools, dis-
tricts, and states; and on and on. In a thicket
oftests that vary wildly in quality, it,s easy to
forget the true purpose ofschool: providing an
excellent education to every child who walks
through the doors.
Data can work toward that end, but only
when assessments measure the right things,
are used in a way that suppots s&ools rather
than punishing them, and are given in modera-
tion sowe dont sacri&e toomuch instructional
time.
Policymakers cant just ask,,Does this new
test give us useflil data?"They have to ask the
harder question,'Does this new test give us
data that justiDs the cost, the logistical bur-
den, and the lost instructional time it will im-
pose?"
Education policy doesnt advance in a straight
line. It swings from side to side, and the swings
can be wild.
There was a time when we didn,t have
enough data.lt was too easy for teachers to
insist of a struggling student,.She has come
so far,"without any realjusti[bation for that
claim. Kids fell through the cracks, especially
underserved kids in schools and districts with
populations that were doing well in the aggre-
gate.
-
But that time has long passed. The pendu-
lum has swung further in the opposite direc-
tion than anyone thought it could swing. That
pendulum seems to be powered by the bizarre
assumption that the more data we generate,
the smarter our students will bemme.
Data, shmata. It's what we do with it that
counts.
Published October 1 5, 201 4,
in Education Week
COmmentary
PftmE K-12
Df r mthr Rmht
Hlr-ds, n thr
RMht TM E
ByiNq HamE
he drive to close achievement gaps
and eliminate chronic low perfor-
mance has become a quest for the
K-I2 Holy Grail. We know what
we are looking for and why, and see clues to
success everywhere.
In public education, the promise of data-
informed decisions that drive instruction,
improve student and school performance,
and close achievement gaps appears limit-
less.
But schools, districts, and most K-l2lead-
ership teams are not close to realizing the
kinds ofdata-driven bene[s that already
exist in Dlds like Drancial services, medi-
cine, and science.
There are numerous reasons for this. In
large part, the problem starts with failing
to customize data programs for education-
speciLc missions and becoming distracted
by 'Snapshots" of data, including early-
warning systems that rely on one-time im-
pression s of student performance.
In public education, data analysis offers
the foundation for smarter decisions. The
key lies in integrating and adapting data
systems so they provide meaningful infor-
mation that helps educators and schools
adjust to their individual students, needs.
To get there, certain changes need to hap-
pen.
Certainly, it is important to routinely
generate reports fr om student-information
systems. But such reports often represent
aggregate views ofstudent and school data
devoid ofthe deep visualizations that are
critical to strategic and tactical judgments.
Beyond that, there is the practice of
adopting tools from other industries, mostly
business, and forting them into education
uses without revamping them. A prime
example would be using an analytic tool
designed for trnancial services to analyze
assessment data in a school or district. The
usefulness of the tool simply doesnl trans-
fer. Here, the instinct is right, but the praG
8. Educat ion WFtrK Spoil ight on Creating a Cultureof Data edweek.org
tice is wrong-head€d.
We can learn valuable lessons from other in_
dustries, but they must be considered in terms
oftheir practicality for public education.
For example, every state collects student and
school information; millions ofpieces of data
are archived in data warehouses. But the ar_
chived data are seldom, ifever, consequential
to school or district leaders or classroom teach_
ers. Once archived, most of the information is
never touched again.
By contrast, organizations that live and
thrive by the management ofbig data-_{oogle,
Facebook, Consumer Reports, Bloomberg and
the U.S. Census Bureau-use their archived
data routinely. For such organizations, the
value of data analytics is compelling, and the
daily use ofdata analytics is essential and
fundamental to the work they do. Such is, or
should be, the case in public education.
At least I I mmpelling.Value propositions,,
(a business term for promised values for cus-
tomers) are crucial to the successful use ofdata
in public education. Any claim of datadriven
decision making where the value propositions
are not evident and transparent is delusional.
1. Eltms rruS bIDltttrmtrTt thndr[Erths
thd w[kntssB d [dE]trk]t, schffi, dGsrmn
studthts, grEElDrds, trt rbhrs. Such ftrd-
ings require deep insights into the teaching
and learning activities taking place in the or-
ganization.
The strengths and weaknesses ofan educa_
tional organization are not evident in the stan-
dard annual report ofa state agency or the re-
porting requirements of the U.S. Department
of Education. This is also true ofearly-warning
systems designed to [ag students who may
have learning problems later on.
2. Btrtst trrd schtrl ltBrshmt[rrE mrst hB/tr
firmtdm! EccGs tE Eyry dE[ mlit nrcGstry
fnt[bhmg, IEnmg, rd DctrrrtDilmy.
Twenty-four hours after data have been ar-
chived, the information must be available for
analyticuse. Delayed reporting is a fatal traw
of accountability testing. Generally, the analy-
sis ofresults has very little consequence for
teaching and learning in the current school
year, and almost no in trrence on the planning
for the upcoming sdool year, becausJthe dati
are not immediately available.
3. Th[dtrlmlst rB/til tEttrrE thd rT-ffrtunE
tffi fr studDrt Dtd/D schE grtr^/th. Because
it is possible for students to improve their
test scores without demonstrating growth in
their content knowledge or academic skills,
it is imperative that practitioners be able to
see whether students are simply improv_
ing their test scores or truly learning more
and better. To do this, the data mustlenect
engagement and performance over an ex_
tended period of time.
Annual or semiannual reports on test scores
are inadequate for capturing achievement and
growth for students and schools.
4. TEmtk! mfDmd judgmhts rb&t t[bhtr
fffrctpmGs, studrht &hmvUTtht, md grtr^/th,
dn!rust bnlmkB tlttrbhr &[utrfltrr nro ns
fGsmd dry[[rnnrt nLds.
The data must allow analyses of irstruc-
tional strands from formative assessments.
This enables teachers who need support to get
what they need to strengthen their pedagogy
and content knowledge.
5. admmBtrntrs rhd trchrs nilrst bE tbl[tn
mft E my trrd quGk crrd trmq ctrduct crGs.
rffrthcmg, rd DcGs cmtrthmsD! studtht
DilB m th mdrnrd, dtrGrEh thvmmmDt.
When a new data point beoomes available, it
must be accessible to educators quickly (within
24 hours) for there to be any hope ofusing in-
structional and developmental time well.
6. thrlmJst brwq/s t! rGl}lt hBtrts[ rd
trthd dtr!m vtrm.js mtrfgrtfts, mnrGfb;
QgrQtrE, dBegrQtrD. The lessons embed_
ded in historical and trend data often help ex-
plain current conditions and performance. The
visualized data must allow for queries that can
be answered by mining various data Dlds.
7. Ihndtr[ mlst tlrynncmvtrstrulrs wftr trrd
bthilU1 stftmddDs. Assumptions and feelings
must be informed by real-time analyses of rel_
evant data.
8. Itrthrs thd dmmFltrnrs nust b! rntEi/_
rd tudlthndtr!mmmg thtr B crmEd ttstu_
dtrt DhtwlTtflt md grs/vth.
Information-technology professionals must
focus on data Ddelity, end-user support, and
technology infr astructure instead of being con-
Rred to managing data and generating reports
with marginal utility.
9. R[il-tm!dtrnmmag nust surm.t th!dwd_
ffinmt E strtrere md tDtrls tDcl GE Dhm/D
mmtgtB.
Queries about the data on individuals or
groups are essential to understanding achieve_
ment gaps and what might be done to elimi_
nate them. Correspondingly, all objectives to
improve achievement must be informed by
highly nuanced data.
10. effBtDEtrchmg mrst btrthnftic{ tr mdy_
sE tf tbSth/trms rd E/flutrmhs, whEh wnid
hD/[ tE bE mchrd m tmnBy qud mEEE rhd
qumtmmdtrtr
1 1 . anilytGs shtrrld mtdfnEE thd trms-frm thn
ustr tf studtrrt-mfrmtrffii systDns frBn stnE
wfth[rsB ttrmffmtr[h rGfurcB. The goal is
to get data into the hands ofthose working in
schools and classrooms.
To build meaningful personalized learning
experiences from data, educators must have a
deep understanding ofevery student3 circum-
stances-including academics, behavior, demo-
graphics, growth and development, and history.
With such insights, teachers and education
leaders can target issues with appropriate
interventions and personalize teaching and
learning effectively.
This new frontier in big data must be inte-
grated into education to accelerate achieve-
ment for all students.
Irving Hamer is an education consultant.
He is a former deputy superintendent for
academics, technology, and innovation for the
Memphis, Tenn., school systern.
9. Educat ion WEEKSotlight on Creating a O-rttureof Data edweek.org
Published Jyl." 1,2015, in
COmmentary
Education Week's On California Blog
ls Ed. Data aFitbit
or ahst-Mortem?
By chamtayluKlltrrnn
alifornia has dumped its single-in-
dicator, test-score driven account-
ability measure and adopted eight
state priorities, some ofwhich can
be constructed partly oflocal measures.
Now the hard part:what will the state mea-
sure and how? And with what consequence?
Will the new data system work like a Fit-
bit, one of the physical activity monitors that
provide constant feedback, or as University
of Oregon professor David Conley put it,
like a post-mortem examination of deceased
schooling? Conleyh question, which he
raised at a recent California State Board of
Education meeting, crystallizes the design
problem the state faces: a single set ofindi-
cators is incompatible with what the system
needs at different levels.
There's both philosophy and plumbing
here.
The philosophy Dws from what IVe been
calling the California Exceptionalism : the
stateb increasingly notable effort to disasso-
ciate education reform from a generation of
negative incentives. The stateS vision is to
use its new Local Control Funding Formula
to create a virtuous circle ofdata, resource
allocation, feedback, and assistance where
necessary.
The multiple indicator idea is spreading
rapidly. It's present in the U.S. Senate ver-
sion of legislation to replace the No Child
Left Behind Act with a much belated update
of the federal government's basic elemen-
tary and secondary school law. And multiple
indicators are part ofthe 12-state Innova-
tion Lab Network assessments.
Philosophy leads to plumbing. In response
to legislation, the State Board ofEducation
is creating evaluation rubrics, essentially
the data elements that schools will be re-
quired to collect and report. It's required to
have something in place by fall. The board
is trying to design visual indicators: a dash-
board, to display its rubrics.
The dashboard data are supposed to
lead districts and schools toward cycles of
continuous improvement as they develop
the annual spending and academic plans
called the Local Control Accountability Plan
(LCAP).
The ftst round took place last year. The
results werent perfect, but school districts
universally preferred the new system to the
old categorical funding formula. The new
system fostered integration of Drancial and
educational planning. Parents and commu-
nity groups were more involved, at least in
some places.
County oftrces ofeducation are supposed
to support districts in their planning when
necessary, and districts send their LCAP
plans tothe county ofEce for approval. Then
districts implement programs of ongoing
professional learning all built around the
goals and data, and the cycle begins again.
But as my annotations (the red scratch-
ing from the talented On California'graph-
ics department) show, folks in Sacramento
face a huge design problem. Assembling
the dials and buttons for a dashboard faces
three requirements that are ultimately in-
compatible with a single set of indicators.
First, multiple indicators face a skeptical
public. Most immediately, the dashboard
concept faces critics that want an easy-to-
understand single indicator of school per-
formance. It will take considerable effort to
extinguish that m indset.
Second, schools and districts will need to
turn from documenting the results from last
year on the eight state indicators to using
data to help their organizations improve.
Practically, this means moving from post-
mortem data to leading indicators, looking
for the kinds ofthings that suggest that a
school will have success in the future.
-t:,.';:{'2 'itfr{i:H:
AnallsE tfDErrm
Ftr][[harrn(!9.,
Baluamnmbre, ltfel
rrrds aGil)68
assist atr Ce f r om Compl ianCe
or ieat ed or ganizat ioos
-o.j:"::""''
DFMII|LcAP
implnnrrEnlrloQmU
P[InEs]rrrH LDmau
LCAPDn/iEmrrn
(alEttrE mtrJm
allfE[Inwrh
llalgmls)
(
Dsrilrml cAPAdFrmr
& co eAppunal
cIUtrySippm
mDBtmrIs
(-
10. Ed ucat ion VrEEK gotl ight on Creating a Ortt"ur€of Data
Unless they Cg. the new data system will
become yet another exercise in compliance
behavior. School districts will collect and
report the needed data, but the information
wont help their schools perform better, or
even worse, schools will target the indica-
tor itselfinstead ofthe underlying learning
goals.
Third, at the teacher and student levels,
how do the dashboard indicators create
information that helps students learn?
States and school districts, to a certain ex-
tent, work on-an annual feedback cycle as
exempli[ed by the LCAP cycle illustrated
above. The student-teacher feedback cycle
requires mud more frequent looping. In a
Fitbit world, students would get data that
they could react to, self-monitol and per-
haps take some pride in.
As it stands now, wete a lot closer to post-
mortem than a Fitbit.
edweek.org 10
Cop@ht @2015 bnEditottril
PrDjects in Eductrion, lnc.
all ilghts tssetsed.
No prE of this publictrion shdl
be tspDduced, $oGd in ! Btthvd
sGleE, otrtffiistr itted btr m!
. eL-ns, eled onic ouothe Wise,
without thew ltten petr ission
of the coprfight holden
r efdel$ n m n ile up to 5 pmnt
copies of this publictrion n no cost
fotrpeBond, nonotr tretBifl use,
pEvided thtr erch includes trfull
cittrion of the soume.
ViSt www.edweek.o q/ go/copies
fotrinfom trion tbout dditionil
pmnt photoopies.
R blished br Editofii PDjeds
in Eductrion, lnc.
6935 a tlington r ord, Stite 100
BethesdB mD,20814
Phone: (301) 280-3100
www.edweek.og