I'll Respect You More if You Stop Using the Word "Data"

It can be pretty difficult listening to instructional coaches, administrators, or superintendents talk about effective teaching these days without hearing one word that has begun to send shivers down the backs of teachers.

"Good instructional leaders know how to use data to improve instruction."

"Good teachers analyze student data to make solid instruction decisions."

It reminds me most often of this silly clip:



Now, don't get me wrong. It's not that I think using information we glean from students to instruct them is a bad idea. I think educators have been doing that for millennia. When we notice students aren't understanding something, we slow down or alter the way we transmit the information.

I also believe that taking time to analyze information we gather from students can be quite useful. When we only look at information students are providing us one way, we're prone to overlook what could be powerful teachable moments.

But let's unpack the meaning of an assertion like the one below:

"Good teachers analyze student data to make solid instruction decisions."

I don't have a problem with what might be meant when it's suggested that good teachers analyze student data. If you take the sentence at face value, it could mean that teachers should do anything and everything from engaging in extended conversations with students to assess their learning to pouring over answers on multiple-choice tests.

Sure - at face value, the idea that good teachers analyze data to make instructional decisions is a reasonable assertion.

But after a few years in and around public education, you learn very quickly that that assertion is not meant to be taken at face value. Those of us literate in edujargon are well aware that the word data means something very specific here, and it can depend on your context, but it most often refers to whatever standardized assessment your school (and more and more often your school's teachers) will be evaluated with. For more on this, see my long-winded attempt to break down the silliness of data-driven instruction in this series of posts.

As teachers, and as members of the public, we need to understand that much of education is a numbers game for instructional coaches, administrators, and superintendents: decrease truancy, improve test scores, improve graduation rates. The same is true for teachers who are now being evaluated on "student achievement" - read: standardized test scores.

We also desperately need to understand that playing that numbers game well often has unintended negative consequences, which have all been fleshed out over and over again by public education advocates: narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test, cheating, elimination of arts and physical education programs, etc.

It is all of these ideas that run through my head whenever I hear someone talk about using data in schools. I know what you mean. And I need you to know that "data" is usually not the information that helps me best understand my students.

As the avatar in the clip above tries to explain, there are many ways we can learn about our students' understanding. I will use my own information, evidence if you will, to guide my instruction. Data is for career advancement.