As a more "left-brained" thinker, data excites me. The numbers automatically create connections in my mind, and I can pick out meaningful patterns. However, not everybody is as enthusiastic about using data as I am.
One obstacle that teachers face when it comes to data is that they don't find it useful or think that it doesn't matter. In my experience, this is largely because the data set seems too abstract. Teachers could benefit from being trained more explicitly how to interpret data and then make use of it. When time allows, I could talk to my administration about scheduling a PD session that I could lead about how to interpret data and respresent it in a way that makes it more meaningful. In chapter 7 of Learning by Doing, DuFour points out that "providing evidence of results is one of the most effective ways to win the support of resistors." If we can help teachers to collect the right kinds of data and then interpret it, it is likely that they will be more willing to "jump on board" new initiatives, including the creation of Data Teams.
Another excuse I've heard from teachers about why they don't take the time to analyze data is that there are too many factors in place that are outside of the teacher's control. I agree that there is a lot contributing to the success (or failure) of students, but data can actually help us see which subsets of students are thriving in different environments. It's our job as teachers to help ALL students succeed, and using data to find the things that work for different students is a way of accomplishing that.
Perhaps the most common reason I hear for teachers not wanting to use comparative data is that "comparative" is far too often confused with "evaluative." In a society full of competition, it's hard not to see the teacher with the best data as "winning" and the teacher with the worst data as "losing." I have seen veteran teachers get defensive when they see that a younger teacher has gotten better results. I've heard "I'm just tougher on students, so I score more harshly" on several occasions despite practicing collaborative grading. These teachers are fearful that if they aren't getting better results, they'll be pushed out, and they have anecdotal evidence that it could happen.
The question is: how will those teachers be convinced that it's okay to not be the best? DuFour addresses this concern by saying "there will always be a teacher with the lowest results on any given common assessment, just as there will always be 50% of the students in the bottom half of the graduating class." I don't think that's enough to convince the teachers who are fearful of losing their job. It may help if care was taken to keep data anonymous at a higher level. After all, the people who benefit from having names attached to data are the teachers, not the administration or district. I would also like to see people with more power putting the focus on individual growth and a willingness to put in the work to achieve that growth. If less effective teachers must be pushed out, let it be the teachers who refuse to do what's best for the school as a whole rather than those who just need more coaching.
The administration in my building communicates frequently that the data they collect during walk-throughs is not evaluative, but not everyone believes them. The culture of the school plays a big part in this. Many teachers feel wary about decisions made by administration because the process of gaining consensus for new initiatives has not been effectively present.
Personally, I feel that many staff members at my school would be appreciative if the administration brought new initiatives to us in the process DuFour outlines in chapter 7 of Learning by Doing. Specifically, I think that if there was a focus on building shared knowledge, the more stubborn staff members would be more willing to listen to what was being presented. They may listen more intently in order to find ways to support their rejection, but it would be a foot in the door. Some administration seems to want to avoid conflict, so they tell us how it's going to be. However, everyone involved needs to "recognize that conflicts are more productive when members have found common ground on major issues" (DuFour chapter 8) so that we can re-focus on what matters - the students. A shared purpose can help build trust and a positive climate, which can lead to more people being willing to share their views. When more views are shared, more creative solutions are able to arise.
Although the building as a whole falls in the developing stage, my PLC is easily within the sustaining stage of responding to conflict. Visitors to our PLC are taken aback by how much arguing happens, but because it's a safe space with high levels of trust, we are able to use the arguments in a way to come up with solutions that are even better than we had thought of before. On several occasions, we have disagreed about what strategy would be best for teaching specific content. Two of us will end up deciding to teach it one way and the other two teach it another way. Afterward, we can come together to compare the results, then make note of what worked better so that we can use the more successful strategy in the future. My PLC has been told by multiple observers that we are one of the most positively productive teams in the building, and we get asked how we do it. I strongly agree with DuFour that "the real strength of a PLC is determined by the response to disagreements ... that inevitably occur."
I have become very close with my PLC, and we work well together, so when I heard that we are moving toward data teams instead of PLCs, I was wary. When I learned that a data team was basically a PLC with more structure and a stronger focus on results, my wariness quickly turned to excitement. We have already cemented our skills in collaboration and inquiry, but becoming a data team means that the meetings we already have regularly will be more focused and driven by the actions we as teachers will take and the results those actions get.
In order to move from progressing to sustaining in data teams, my team will need to focus on how to "make midcourse corrections and celebrate short-term wins" (McNulty). Currently, we only discuss specific data after a unit is over, so our adjustments don't take place until the following year.
I am excited to be able to focus more intentionally on data with my team as we move forward, and I hope our building as a whole will be able to move to this stage in a purposeful way as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment