About ASCDJoin / MembershipResearch A TopicPublicationsBlogBooksEducational LeadershipE-PublicationsLexicon of LearningNewslettersPast ASCD PublicationsProfessional DevelopmentConferencesInitiatives & ProgramsNews & MediaPublic PolicyASCD StoreMISSION: ASCD is a membershiporganization that developsprograms, products, and servicesessential to the way educatorslearn, teach, and lead.We are here to help!1703 North Beauregard St.Alexandria, VA 22311-1714Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)Fax: 1-703-575-54008:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ESTMonday through FridayLocal to the D.C. area:703-578-9600, press 1Toll-free from U.S. and Canada:1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press1All other countries (InternationalAccess Code):+1-703-578-9600, press 1 December 2008/January 2009December 2008/January 2009 | Volume 66 | Number 4Data: Now What? Pages 89-90The Learning Leader / Looking Deeper Into theDataDouglas B. ReevesYou need to make data-driven decisions!" intoned theworkshop leader. I doubt that any of the teachers andadministrators in the audience intended to make "ignorance-driven" decisions. In fact, few school leaders are experiencinga shortage of data. Most are actually drowning in data, with awealth of test scores, student demographic information, and an increasing load of "formative"assessment data that may or may not be worthy of the name (Popham, 2008). The challengeis facing both an overabundance of data and a scarcity of information that educators canreadily use to make better decisions.Data Everywhere … and NowhereMy observations in three recent school visits in the western, mid-western, and eastern UnitedStates illustrate the point. In the first, more than a ream of paper containing test data sat onthe principal's desk, the paper still shrink-wrapped in plastic where it had been since lastApril, unopened by the overwhelmed principal. In the second district, I conducted a focusgroup of 15 principals who were promised confidentiality in exchange for candor; 14 of themconfessed to never having used the multi-million-dollar data warehouse their district hadpurchased. The third district was loaded to the gills with advanced technology fordownloading and analyzing data, yet the teachers of an elementary school with more than800 students were printing every test score, grade, and demographic characteristic ofstudents on chart paper for their "data analysis" meetings. "It's easier this way," the principalexplained.Navigating the Data RiverHere are four tips for gaining control over the flood of data that threatens to engulf us. First,commit to data analysis as a continuous process, not an event. A study by the Bay AreaSchool Reform Collaborative (Oberman & Symonds, 2005) revealed that schools thatreviewed data several times each month were far more likely to close achievement gapsthan those that reviewed data only a few times a year.Second, start with a clearly focused question, such as, What are our greatest areas ofstrength in literacy for our 8th grade students? Which specific math skills are weakest in 4thgrade? How do the vocabulary scores of our students who receive free and reduced-pricelunch differ from those of our economically advantaged students? How are the scores ofstudents who attend school at least 90 percent of the time different from those of studentswho attend less than 90 percent? What is the relationship between the two previousquestions—that is, are students who are disadvantaged also more likely to be absent fromschool? Having a clearly focused question will avoid the tedious and time-wasting exercise oftrolling through spreadsheets, papers, and databases without any direction.Third, develop a schoolwide culture of hypothesis testing, in which teachers consider theirassumptions before they look at the data. Consider two examples: "If a topic was on thepacing chart in October and the teacher has covered it, then students will have learned it; ifthe topic was not yet covered, then the students will not have learned it." Although thisseems straightforward and even obvious, I have challenged teachers in several schools totest the hypothesis with data. If the hypothesis were true, then students taking a formativeassessment in February should ace the material covered in October and fail the materialscheduled to be covered in April. In fact, the reality of student mobility and studentinattention may render these assumptions inappropriate.Here's another common hypothesis: "If students performed poorly on a math test, then weneed to drill them harder on math skills." That's possible, but it is also possible that the rootMEMBER SIGN INUsername or Customer IDPasswordForgot your Username or Password?JOIN ASCD | MEMBER BENEFITS Countdown to AnnualConferenceOrlando, Fla.March, 13-16, 2009ASCD HOME JOIN ASCD MY ASCDASCD Educational LeadershipEducational Leadership:Data: Now What?:The Learning Leader / Lookin... http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/dec08/vol66/n...1 of 2 1/15/2009 1:09 PMPermissions andTranslationsASCD recognizes and respectsintellectual property rights andadheres to copyright law. Learnabout our rights andpermissions policies.Morecause of low math scores is students' inability to read the problem or, in the case ofopen-response items, students' inability to express their responses in writing.Fourth, go beyond the numbers to consider causes of student success and failure. When theonly data available are student demographic characteristics, then it is easy to assume thatthe causes of high or low achievement are related to family income, ethnicity, gender, andprimary language. Such an analysis avoids a consideration of the powerful influences ofteaching practices, curriculum, and feedback, just to name a few variables you won't find in adata warehouse. It's easy to create PowerPoint slides and wall charts showing data. It's morechallenging—but more important—to have discussions about how the classroom experiencesof students differ.For example, one school system examined the time devoted to literacy in 67 elementaryschools. Although the system leaders believed that there was a consistent districtwideliteracy program, an examination of time and test scores revealed striking differences, withthe time devoted to literacy ranging from 45 to 180 minutes. When teachers plotted thepercentage of students who scored "proficient" or higher in reading, they learned that theschools that spent more time on reading usually had a higher percentage of students whowere