Data use in PLC

Given the complexity of teaching, and the emphasis on teacher

accountability and individualized instruction, using data to inform instruction has become an increasingly important feature of teaching practice post NCLB. Due to the prominence of using data to guide teaching, I asked a coach if she noticed a difference in student outcomes by teacher.

Serena: Do certain classes learn more than others?

Coach: Yes. The teachers that are, like if I'm using for instance, literacy, the teachers that are receptive to our literacy model,

that institute the components of the model, who do the daily running records, who are looking at those formal assessments all the time and readjusting what they're teaching, using those assessments to guide the instruction, their students are more successful. And one of the, we're in the middle of the year. We always do our big reading assessments, beginning, middle, and end. So we've just done our middle assessments and you can see the classes that, where those things are happening, they've moved those children. Even those children that had at the beginning of the year that were below expectations, they've been able to move them and sometimes considerably. In the classrooms where that's not always the case, they become stagnant. Or even, you have some that are, at the beginning of the year, meeting expectations, have even slipped down to below or approaching.

[Meadows coach]

Part of the Dorn model was to administer weekly running records for each child, but the coach‘s comments above insinuated that teachers were not always implementing the Dorn model with fidelity.

The lack of running record data for students illustrated one limitation that Meadows teachers had when considering how to create instruction to meet student needs. The coach described other data teachers were supposed to use to drive their instruction. In her mind, these data were public.

Serena: Do people, obviously you look at your own classroom data, but do people have the opportunity to look at other teachers' or is that...you know what I mean?

Coach: I mean, I think more grade level, perhaps. Certainly grade level because like I said we have the assessment wall. So one of the things we're going to do is take our reading scores and they're going to adjust those data cards based on those scores. So grade level wise, it's all out in the open. You know. You know where it's at. There's not hiding. And then of course, we see the MEAP data. That's entire staff at staff meetings that we kind of look at that kind of stuff. So there is opportunity to kind of see. [Meadows coach]

The coach described an assessment wall that occupied a vacant classroom, dubbed the ―teacher work room.‖ Using large pocket charts that spanned an entire

chalkboard, students test scores were placed along a continuum representing their reading level. The approach that the literacy coaches took was to represent each student on an index card, which contained data from key assessments. The cards were moved along the continuum to mirror student progress. While the coach suggested that the assessment wall made the data public, when I viewed the data wall, it was unclear from a grand sense to ascertain which students belonged to which teachers. Because all students were represented on the wall, one could get an aggregate sense of the reading levels of Meadows‘ students, but it seemed impossible from such a snapshot to understand how each teacher‘s students were performing relative to one another.

It also was apparent that student movement along the continuum was not particularly important to all teachers. Below, a coach described her priorities regarding reading levels.

Coach: In the lower grades, I mean those kids move! You have to know. In fifth grade, if I get a child to move a grade level, I'm so happy! Well they usually do, but when they're low, they move a grade level so they're still low. It's frustrating. Unless like, [student] and a couple of the really newer kids, I can move them a ton. But yeah, a lot of that is just whatever. Like

anything, you have to pick your priorities and that is not one of them, moving those cards...because it has nothing to do with what we do with kids every day. It doesn't.

Serena: What are your priorities, would you say, with your kids? Coach: Um, making sure they learn every single day. You know, like

the objective. We have objectives every day. Did you do this? Did you learn this? That's my priority and making them feel successful.

Here a literacy coach explained how moving children up grade levels in reading was not her main concern. Instead, she described her priorities as making sure students learned and felt successful. Given that this individual was a coach, her values were likely projected on teachers with whom she worked. Since this coach did not believe that student progressing in reading levels was of the utmost

importance, it is unlikely that other teachers placed indices of achievement at center stage.

A crucial data point was the MEAP. The state of Michigan required MEAP administration at the beginning of the year55 with the purpose being that teachers could use the results to inform their instruction. At Meadows, two teachers explained that MEAP scores were primarily used to gain a sense of current students in the classroom, but not used as an outcome measure of

teaching. Results were aggregated and MEAP scores were reported to the staff by grade level. Ms. Kent explained that Principal Novara did not want to ―hurt feelings‖ by comparing outcomes. By not having access to all MEAP scores, Meadows teachers were shielded from the data. They generally had access to data for their current students, but teachers were not encouraged to consider the

previous year‘s data as an outcome of their instruction. Instead, data was generally presented as a grade-level, masking individual classroom variation. Such limited access to data was prohibitive of teacher learning that is required of a PLC. Such practices may have led Meadows teachers to have stifled

55 _{This practice began during the 2005-6 school year. Prior to this time, the MEAP was}

conversations around test scores because teachers did not have a robust sense of their colleague‘s performance.

I had the opportunity to observe a staff meeting where teachers were discussing MEAP scores (Field Notes, 4/19/2010). In this meeting, teachers met with their grade levels to analyze MEAP data for the purpose of tweaking their school improvement plan. Teachers were instructed to look at aggregate scores and find skills where 75% or less of the students did not hit bench mark. As the teachers were highlighting these bench marks, there was extensive discussion about limited student progress. Said one, ―I teach, I teach, I teach and they still don‘t get it‖ which placed all of the blame for lack of student performance on children. In another‘s words, ―They hold us responsible, but they should hold the kids and families responsible!‖ Another proclaimed, ―Last year I didn‘t like my kids, this year I don‘t like the profession.‖ This teacher continued by stating that she was terrified of merit pay.56

Such remarks illustrate a lack of efficacy at Meadows around MEAP scores in particular. When presented with an opportunity to analyze test scores and determine areas in which teachers could learn from one another and improve instruction, instead Meadows teachers complained. During the entire hour and a half that I observed not a single teacher took responsibility for poor student performance. However, Ms. Kent asked a teacher who was presiding over the meeting if she could think about the data in a different way.

56 _{Merit pay is an approach where teacher compensation is in part tied to student achievement.}

During the meeting all student achievement scores were presented in the aggregate. Teachers were instructed to use the test scores as a measure of the students in their current class. Yet, they were not encouraged to consider test scores from the previous year as an outcome of teacher work. Ms. Kent wanted to see the scores from her previous year‘s class in order to evaluate her teaching. I had a chance to discuss this issue with Ms. Kent in a subsequent interview.

Kent: In fifth grade they do this [take MEAP] in early October. So basically they are tested on fourth grade material.

Serena: Right.

Kent: So I'd like to know what I taught last year, what I did last year, how did those kids do? Isn't that what I am supposed to do? So then I know this year what to cover more, what to emphasize more because these kids will be tested on fourth grade material that I am teaching right now. You know? So I would like to know that. I thought that's what we been doing. I don't know why we were looking at fourth grade scores this year. I have no idea because...okay we can just tell the third graders what we noticed. But it's more effective if I look at it its measure of my work, too.

Serena: Right. Do you…I mean is there...[resource teacher] made a point to say that "We weren't looking classroom to classroom we were looking at their grade.‖

Kent: Yeah.

Serena: So people don't...how do I say this?

Kent: They're not being evaluated by that. We really try not to do that.

Serena: Okay.

Kent: Yeah. I think a couple times maybe we just got our class list and they looked at it. But everybody was kind of afraid. It‘s like ―oh my gosh. So does it say I'm terrible?‖ I think

[principal] is really trying not to hurt feelings or anything, so let's just look at the grade as a whole and if you wanna know your kids‘ grade, that's different. Then you can still ask [resource teacher] to segregate that.

[Ms. Kent, Meadows teacher] As illustrated by Ms. Kent‘s statements, a feature of the Meadows school climate was protecting teachers‘ feelings around student achievement. Ms. Kent was

somewhat of an anomaly, as she was the only person in the staff meeting who asked about the MEAP scores from her previous students. While she wanted to use the MEAP as a measure of her teaching, the way that data were received at Meadows made that difficult. Clear, is that Meadows teachers were not evaluated by their students‘ MEAP performance. But the other side of the coin is that teachers did not understand the data or learn how to improve their instruction based on such test scores due to lack of experience. Kent‘s words ―does it say I‘m terrible‖ when she referred to how teachers read MEAP data illustrates that teachers were not particularly skilled at analyzing or interpreting their students‘ data. Nor did they use data to drive future instruction, either formative or summative.

Confirming the use of aggregate MEAP data, Ms. Richards discussed how she thought about MEAP scores.

Serena: Do people break out the scores by teacher? Like is it clear who may be doing better or worse with their students?

Richards: No. We try not to do that. It's more just by grade. I mean, I get my scores, but really I've only had them a month and I don't even look at, based on who they had before that, I know as a student because most of the time it's pretty consistent through the years. And they just started taking it in third grade.

[Ms. Richards, Meadows teacher] Not only did Ms. Richards concur that scores were presented by grade level, but that teachers used MEAP as an evaluation only of their students. Teachers did not receive the scores of the students they had the previous year to utilize such data as an outcome of their work.

The danger in not granting access to all staff members to see all student performance data was the missing connection of student learning to teacher

practice. The way that assessments were construed at Meadows, MEAP data was a total reflection of the child, not the teachers. This did not allow teachers to thoroughly examine teacher practice in relation to student achievement. If Meadows had a culture that was more open about student data, a teacher could easily figure out areas where student performance was weak, identify a colleague who had better student performance, and share strategies. Teachers who were having more trouble with a particular area could observe colleagues who were more successful. It is this open communication that is vital to a flourishing PLC, and while teachers at Meadows discussed instructional issues, they were not particularly transparent about teacher and student performance.