Developing Positive Data Cultures in High-Stakes Environments: The Role of School Leaders Discussion Post
Developing Positive Data Cultures in High-Stakes Environments: The Role of School Leaders Discussion Post
Read the following case and respond to the question prompts by Friday at midnight. Respond to at least 3 classmates.
Case Study
Increased school accountability has intensified and formalized data use processes to guide school improvement efforts (Jennings, 2012; Vanlommel & Schildkamp, 2019). As a result, heightened expectations have been placed on educators to use data in school-based decisions (Datnow & Park, 2018)—particularly decisions that can support student achievement (Mandinach & Gummer, 2016) and improve the performance of historically marginalized populations (e.g., students with disabilities, racial minorities; Datnow & Park, 2014). Yet when data are used primarily for accountability purposes, it can have
a detrimental effect on the school’s data culture and lead teachers to feel vulnerable and unsafe (Lasater, Albiladi et al., 2020). It can also lead teachers to blame students for academic challenges they experience and therefore diminish the potential of data use for equity (Lasater, Bengtson et al., 2020; Bertrand & Marsh, 2015). Thus, as school leaders implement data practices in response to high-stakes accountability, they must do so in ways which improve the learning outcomes of all students, foster teachers’ sense of professional safety, and promote the development of positive data cultures.
Currently, student achievement data plays a critical role in school improvement plans (Datnow & Hubbard, 2016). These plans outline how assessment data can improve instruction, guide curriculum, and build educators’ capacity for data use. Consequently, achievement data are often center in data-based team meetings and professional development. Student data is also critical for addressing and achieving school equity (Datnow & Park, 2018). Because data use has the potential to identify disparities and challenge deficit thinking aimed at subgroups (Datnow & Park, 2014), it is inextricably connected with reform efforts focused on equitable student learning outcomes.
Case Narrative
Milo School District (MSD) is located in the rural south. It consists of four schools and serves approximately 1,900 students grades K-12. The following case describes data practices enacted at MSD in response to high-stakes accountability and pressure, and it explores the interplay between school accountability, data use, data cultures, and equity. The narrative focuses on two schools within the district: Milo Intermediate and Milo Middle (see Table 1). The narrative is fictional; however, it was created based on teachers and leaders’ experiences using data in Arkansas schools (see Lasater, Albiladi
et al., 2020; Lasater, Bengtson et al., 2020). Leaders at these schools were tasked by Dr. Bryant, MSD superintendent, to improve student performance on the state standardized assessment, particularly for African American students and students receiving free/reduced lunch.
This case represents Dr. Bryant’s third year as MSD superintendent. Previously, he served 6 years as a high school principal in a nearby district where he turned around the struggling school. His high school became one of the top-performing schools in the state by significantly raising the achievement levels of minority students. Dr. Bryant believed his reputation as a strong instructional leader was the reason he was hired at MSD. MSD was notorious for its long history of racial and class inequities—inequities that were of seemingly little concern for many years. With the election of new board members, improving the learning outcomes of historically marginalized students was now a district priority.
Reflecting on District Data
Dr. Bryant was given one directive when hired as MSD superintendent—improve the learning outcomes of all students in the district. Unfortunately, he was failing to meet this expectation. Last week, Dr. Bryant received the district’s annual state assessment results. Once again, African American students and students receiving free/reduced lunch scored markedly lower than other MSD students. If he did not improve scores, Dr. Bryant was certain the board would no longer renew his contract.
As Dr. Bryant prepared to meet with his administrative team regarding the state assessments, he reflected on his time at MSD. At first, Dr. Bryant spent considerable time learning about the district’s history from the perspective of teachers and leaders. He learned that the past superintendent at Milo, Dr. Johnson, was perceived as authoritative, overbearing, and critical of others’ ideas. Dr. Johnson reportedly micro-managed nearly every aspect of classroom and building-level decisions, leading teachers and leaders to feel deprofessionalized by his constant directives and lack of trust in faculty.
Dr. Bryant wanted to demonstrate his trust in faculty by providing them with autonomy to make decisions; thus, he made the conscious decision to take a “hands-off” approach to leading the district. He now regretted this approach. Schools in the district continually failed to meet students’ academic needs, and school data now threatened his credibility as a superintendent. He had established trust with teachers and leaders in the district, and he provided them autonomy to make professional decisions. Had he failed to adequately emphasize improving student achievement? Dr. Bryant felt an increasing frustration and sense of desperation. If he wanted the district to improve, he had to set high expectations for principals and teachers and demand they be held accountable for student performance.
Administrative Team Meeting
Dr. Bryant brusquely started the administrative team meeting with the district’s four principals. “The state assessment results are unsatisfactory. Frankly, this lack of progress cannot be tolerated any longer.” He then presented the district’s assessment data. First, he displayed a table illustrating the number of students who met or exceeded expectations on the state assessment. He then displayed a table comparing the district’s data to state averages:
Our students scored far below the state. Take 3rd grade literacy as an example—30% of Milo students scored in the “ready or exceeding” range compared to the state average of 40%. The results are even worse for student subgroups—40% of White students at Milo were “ready or exceeding” but only 13% of African American students and 19% of economically disadvantaged students scored in this range. This reflects poorly on the district. I am holding each of you personally responsible for improving student test scores in your building.
The principals looked at each other in disbelief. Unlike previous administrative meetings, this was a one-sided meeting with a singular focus: improving student test scores. Dr. Bryant took the first step in changing expectations and establishing a vision for data use in the district. After this meeting, the principals knew their data practices needed to change and they felt a sense of urgency and pressure to meet these expectations.
Milo Intermediate School
Driving home after the meeting, Ms. Hill felt a range of emotions. She had devoted her entire career to Milo Intermediate. She served 16 years as a teacher before accepting the principal position 8 years ago. As a school leader, she felt immense district pressure for Milo Intermediate to perform well on state assessments. In fact, 10 years ago the district hired an instructional facilitator as a mechanism to improve student test scores. One of the instructional facilitator’s primary responsibilities was to assist teachers in using data. Ms. Hill gladly allowed the instructional facilitator to lead Milo Intermediate’s data initiatives. She was not trained on data use and ultimately felt illequipped to support teachers in the process. With the instructional facilitator’s support,
she could focus on her other important job responsibilities. It was the perfect arrangement— until district budget cuts eliminated the position.
The loss of the instructional facilitator was disastrous for Ms. Hill. She tried to lead data meetings, but conversations quickly led to finger-pointing and defensiveness among teachers. When data were brought to team meetings, teachers immediately compared classroom data. Teachers with lower scores felt embarrassed and deflated, and teachers with higher scores seemingly touted their expertise in front of their peers. Over time, it was evident to Ms. Hill that data use in the school fostered negativity and dissension, and she believed it was no longer in the school’s best interest for teachers to collectively share and discuss data. Thus, for the past 2 years, Milo Intermediate had no routines, structures, or systems to support teachers in the use of data. Now they would have to start analyzing student performance data—whether they liked it or not.
In response to the meeting with Dr. Bryant, Ms. Hill prepared to meet with her fifth-grade teachers. She asked teachers to bring data from the recent state assessments. Teachers entered the meeting carrying reports with various charts and figures. As teachers sat down, Ms. Hill explained the district’s mandate to improve student performance. “We must start looking at data, identifying weaknesses, and figuring out how to fix them.” Ms. Hill followed Dr. Bryant’s lead. She presented a table comparing Milo Intermediate’s data with state averages. She then displayed a table with scores from each fifth-grade classroom:
This data is concerning, and each of you must work hard to make the growth Dr. Bryant, the school board, and community expect. Moving forward, you need to collectively look at classroom data, identify deficiencies, and figure out how to improve student performance. For the rest of the meeting, I want you to look at your data and develop a plan. With that, Ms. Hill left the room. She told herself she was leaving so teachers could
openly discuss—deep down she knew it was because she didn’t know how else to support teachers.
While she was leaving the meeting room, the teachers looked at each other in disbelief. They were stunned and visibly deflated. They worked hard to support students, and now their efforts were reduced to a few numbers on a chart—numbers that in no way reflected their knowledge, hard work, or commitment to students. Mrs. Garnett, the groups’ veteran teacher, was first to speak up. “This is outrageous! I know our scores are not where we want them, but test scores don’t tell the whole story!”
“Our students are dealing with so much,” Ms. Cully remarked:
They never get a decent meal at home, and their parents don’t make them go to bed at a decent time. They come to school hungry and tired—not to mention all the baggage they bring with them. Their home lives are horrible, yet they’re supposed to perform well on a test?
“And we’re going to be judged by how well they perform on that test,” Mr. Denny added despondently. “Students put forth zero effort, and their parents don’t care either. The only way to improve the test scores of our African American and low SES students is to fix their home lives first.”
“Don’t get me started on student effort!” exclaimed Ms. Cully. “I’ve had students finish an entire test in less than five minutes. They don’t care or try, but we’re the ones who look bad.”
“And let’s be honest,” Mrs. Luttrell added, “when students get to us, they’re already so far behind. Many of our students come to us completely unprepared for 5th grade. They have deficits that should have been addressed long before they made it to us.”
“It’s definitely not fair,” Mrs. Garnett stated, “We’re supposed to look at the data and magically change the world when we’re done. I can’t even figure out where to start!”
“Where do we start?” Mr. Denny interjected. “The assessments generate different reports, and I don’t know what the reports mean. It’s so overwhelming that I don’t end up using any of it.”
Ms. Cully agreed. “Even if we understood the reports, we’re not given time to look at them. What are we supposed to do?”
The meeting at Milo Intermediate School ended with these heated conversations between teachers. It was clear that Ms. Hill and the teachers were not on the same page as both sides refused to accept responsibility for student outcomes and to utilize data to support students and improve professional practice.
Milo Middle School
Sitting in his office after the meeting with Dr. Bryant, Mr. Jamison, the Milo Middle School principal, contemplated his plan of action. Many of the structures and processes he believed were important for school improvement were already in place. Six years ago, the school implemented data team meetings. Teams met weekly to collaboratively discuss student data, identify areas of needed improvement, and share ideas related to student, teacher, and school growth. What was he missing? Mr. Jamison decided to consult teachers. He asked teachers to review the state assessment data and
reflect on three questions: What did you learn from the data? What do students need to be prepared for the next grade level? and What additional supports do teachers need to help students make this progress?
The following week, Mr. Jamison joined the English Language Arts (ELA) team meeting. When he entered the room, teachers were already discussing the three questions. “When I received the data,” Mrs. Thomas explained. “I looked at the performance of my eighth-graders from last year, and I looked at my current eighth-graders’ performance as seventh-graders.”
Mr. Jamison joined the conversation, “And what did you learn?”
“I was disappointed,” Mrs. Thomas admitted. “I thought last year’s eighth-graders grasped the content more than the test demonstrated. I’m wondering if they didn’t know the content, or maybe they just didn’t perform well on the test.”
“I’m wondering how hard they tried,” Mr. Leaper interjected.
Mr. Jamison reframed and redirected the conversation:
I think what you are getting at is there could be a variety of factors contributing to students’ performance on one standardized assessment. The state assessments provide important data, but it is only one source of information. We need to consider how other data sources could collectively guide our personal and collective growth. What additional data would be helpful in this process?
Mrs. Thomas replied,
I would like to talk to Mr. Redmond at the high school to see how my eighth-graders are doing as freshmen. He might have insights regarding students’ preparedness for high school ELA. Maybe there is something I need to emphasize more or perhaps teach differently.
“That would be valuable information, and easy to obtain too,” Mr. Jamison offered. “I would be happy to help schedule a meeting with Mr. Redmond.”
“That’s not something we’ve done before,” Mrs. Thomas replied, “but it would assist in vertical planning.”
“But that doesn’t help us address discrepancies between our White students and our African American and low SES students,” Ms. Hall noted.
“I don’t think there’s any way we can address this discrepancy,” Miss Temple commented:
Data consistently demonstrates that African American students and students from low SES backgrounds perform lower than their White peers—and that’s everywhere. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect much else.
“I agree that this is a far-reaching issue,” Mr. Jamison responded, but I also wonder if our failure to “expect much else” might be part of the problem. This
is undoubtedly a complex issue, but I wonder what we might be doing, or failing to do, right here at Milo Middle School that further disadvantages the most disadvantaged students.
“I’m not sure what you mean,” Miss Temple acknowledged.
Mr. Jamison appreciated Miss Temple’s honesty, and he was grateful for the opportunity to discuss the interplay between school equity and data use. “Let’s start by identifying the problem. Why do you think it is that African American students and students from low SES backgrounds consistently score lower than their White peers on standardized assessments?”
“To be honest, I always thought this was an SES issue,” Miss Temple replied. “It just so happens that many of our African American students are from low SES backgrounds.”
“And how do you make sense of this?” Mr. Jamison probed. “How has this information guided your decisions?”
“It comes down to parent involvement,” Mr. Leaper responded. “The parents of our low SES kids are not involved in their kids’ lives, and they don’t really value education.”
Mr. Jamison immediately recognized opportunities to challenge teachers’ deficit thinking. He asked teachers to reflect on their beliefs and attitudes about students and their families. When teachers expressed deficit views, Mr. Jamison used those moments to encourage teachers to consider how their own beliefs shaped the types of instructional opportunities and supports provided to students. For example, Ms. Hall recognized how her caring nature led her to have lower expectations for students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. She was so impressed that students submitted any work given the challenges confronting them that she failed to provide them with the critical feedback they needed to improve and grow. Inadvertently, she lowered
her standards for students she deemed as “struggling”—a practice which ultimately limited students’ access to equitable, rigorous instruction.
“There are multiple ways our educational practices can contribute to inequities,” Mr. Jamison stated,
and there’s always room for improvement. I am so grateful that I work with colleagues who are committed to honest self-reflection and ongoing professional growth. That’s actually one of the reasons I value data use. Data should prompt reflection, and reflection is critical to student, teacher, and school improvement.
Mr. Jamison knew there was continued work to be done. Not all teachers were ready and willing to confront their own deficit views of students and families. Nevertheless, he was encouraged by teachers’ willingness to take responsibility for changing in response to student data, and he looked forward to ongoing conversations among faculty related to school equity and improvement.
Discussion Questions
1. School leaders and high-stakes accountability: School leaders can buffer teachers from the pressure associated with federal and state high-stakes accountability— even when this pressure is passed down from district-level leadership (Lasater, Bengtson et al., 2020). Ms. Hill and Mr. Jamison approached their intermediary roles in different manners. How did their varied approaches likely influence their schools’ data cultures? How did their approaches likely influence teachers’ sense of professionalism and agency? How did their approaches likely influence teachers’ perceptions and uses of data? How can leaders respond to high-stakes accountability in ways which promote the development of positive data cultures, and why are positive data cultures important for school improvement?
2. Safe Environments for Data Use: Teachers and leaders often experience punitive pressure as a result of high-stakes accountability, but the establishment of a safe, supportive environment is essential for effective data use. How might teachers at Milo Intermediate and Milo Middle describe their sense of trust and safety with data use? What happens when trust and safety with data use do not exist? How can leaders create safe, supportive school environments for data use?
3. Data Use and Equity: Data use has the potential to promote more equitable learning outcomes for historically disadvantaged students (Datnow & Park,
2014); yet realizing this potential is dependent on how leaders enact school data practices (Lasater, Bengtson et al., 2020). Ms. Hill and Mr. Jamison were challenged to address inequities in student learning at their respective schools, and both leaders considered data use an important part of this process. However, both leaders approached and supported data use in different manners. How did each school’s data practices either reinforce or challenge teachers’ deficit thinking? How does deficit thinking influence school equity? What is the relationship between data cultures, deficit thinking, and school equity?
