Using Technology to Improve Achievement: Making Data Relevant

• 07/01/06

New information systems are helping statesand districts individualize instructionand boost student learning.

NEARLY 10 YEARS AGO, I taught in a progressive school district— or so it was in its approach to data. The superintendent wanted every child to be assessed on every standard, and for the results to be presented graphically. To that end, I was provided a substitute teacher to take over my classroom, giving me time to painstakingly report data on each child for every standard for the grade level, using the rankings “needs improvement,” “developing,” or “proficient” for each standard.

While this may sound like a worthwhile effort, the problem was that we did not have any specific assessments geared toward each standard; I had to make up my own self-assessment (based on my quizzes and tests) for each child. What I received in graphical form was exactly what I entered into the computer. There was no analysis—no ability, for example, to target what each student’s strengths and weaknesses were at understanding fractions. There was no added value to the many, many hours I spent inputting data.

The idea of keeping data on each child’s performance on each standard— translated into an ability to individualize instruction for each student—was right on target. However, we did not have technology to support this process, nor did we have an understanding of how best to use the data. Without a way to use the data or technology effectively, I did not have time or resources to develop appropriate assessments, analyze the resulting data, and decide on individualized plans and instructional materials. If anything, this paper-based process took up the time I could have devoted to creating more specific lessons, remediation, or enrichment for each child. Clearly, a decade ago, we had a long way to go in the gathering and using of data to aid student achievement.

Putting Funding to Use

Most researchers agree that several broad-based steps are required for the effective use of data in education. First, states or districts must agree upon which data elements and indicators to collect. Then, those responsible for collecting the data must ensure its integrity. Once the data is considered valid and reliable, educators must have the opportunity to use the data— and they must know what to do with it.

The federal government has been a key player in this process. For many years now, the US Department of Education has worked to define which data elements and indicators should be collected at the state and district levels. No Child Left Behind has played a major role in defining data, collecting data, and generally raising the attention given to data.

Last November, the department’s Institute of Education Sciences launched an important effort, awarding grants to 14 state education departments for the implementation and development of statewide longitudinal data systems. Although the amount of funding for any one state cannot cover the entire cost of the system, the three-year grants do provide a catalyst and focus to the state’s work.

The way these grants are being used demonstrates not only the potential of such statewide data systems, but also what states hope to accomplish with data systems. For example, with the help of the funding, Pennsylvania will implement its Pennsylvania Information Management System, a statewide, Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF)-enabled PK-16 student record management and vertical reporting system designed to make a quality data and state-of-the-art learning-resource exchange available to educators, students, parents, and policymakers. The goal is for these stakeholders to use the system to support teaching and learning, eliminate performance gaps between subgroups of students, and contribute to improving the achievement of all students.

The ability to monitor real-time data will turn teachersinto empowered consumers of data rather thansimply proctors of a test.

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, the grant will be used to create a longitudinal database that connects finance, student and teacher demographics, student assessments, and professional development with unique student and teacher identification numbers. Arkansas also will use the funding to implement an electronic transcript system.

The progress in data gathering and usage varies widely among states and districts. The Data Quality Campaign and the National Center for Education Accountability recently surveyed all 50 states, concerning 10 essential elements defined by the NCEA. Only seven states had systems that addressed at least eight of the elements, and no state could confirm hitting all 10. While most states and districts are works in progress, we do find encouraging glimpses of what lies ahead. These programs testify to the way states and districts are improving teaching and learning by gathering data on individual students, and linking that data to instruction that can help each child achieve.

Getting Teachers On Board

Many schools, districts, and states have embraced the use of handheld devices to assess reading on a daily basis in elementary- grade classrooms. Many elementary school teachers remember the reading running records, which assessed students’ reading abilities and were something of a predecessor to the approach being taken now by New Mexico and Delaware. In both states, funding from NCLB’s Reading First and Enhancing Education Through Technology programs provides resources for the use of wireless technology to assess students on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS).

The program interventions include teacher training, data collection, and reporting. To start, teachers were trained in the use of a PDA to assess students in grades K-3. At first, the teachers were skeptical of the technology and what they could do with it, but by the end of the first year, they refused to return to paper and pencil.

What sold teachers on this new process? The immediacy of the results, the ease of use, and the ability to readily use the data to inform their instructional practice were all instrumental. Both the progress monitoring that may be done as often as every one or two weeks and the benchmarking that is done three times a year make sense for instruction, because the principal, coach, and teacher can access data reports in a timely manner. In schools where teachers do not see their student data until the following year (when they no longer have those students), the new ability to monitor real-time data will turn teachers into empowered consumers of data rather than simply proctors of a test.

The New Mexico and Delaware examples illustrate what can be achieved once educators become comfortable with acquiring and using data. In talking to educators, using the term data often leads to that glazed-over, blank stare. Many see data and assessment as something being done to them and not for them. This perception will change as data systems are leveraged to improve teaching and learning. Most crucial to changing perceptions is taking the proper approach to professional development, one in which timely, relevant, and accurate data reaches the classroom. Once that structure is in place, we will begin to see data making a difference. Ideally, we will no longer hear about data, in and of itself; instead we will hear about how a particular student in a particular teacher’s class now has the appropriate curriculum and instruction to foster achievement.

Next Steps

In the 10 years since I first entered my personal student ratings into my former district’s cumbersome data system, great progress has been made in schools, districts, and states. Every public education entity in the nation is collecting data, as required by NCLB. The question is whether the efforts to collect the data are improving teaching practices within the classroom. In many cases (see “Inside the States”), the answer is yes.

The districts that are beginning to see the potential of data to improve teaching and learning typically have the following:

1. Human and financial resources dedicated to developing data systems.
2. The right team involved in the development and implementation of the systems and the use of data—including representatives from MIS/IT, curriculum, educational technology, assessment, teaching, and administration.
3. Ownership among and professional development for teachers and administrators.

We still have a long way to go to ensure that teachers and administrators in every state, district, and school have access to useful and relevant data, but we have the opportunity to look at the examples where data systems are working and to learn from them. Data will become relevant to teachers and administrators when they connect it to how their students learn every day. The challenge is to make sure the resources invested in data collection over the next 10 years go well beyond providing required reporting data—and that they pay off by directly improving teaching and learning.

Mary Ann Wolf is the executive director of SETDA.