Proven methods of working with students are something that are important when working in schools, but there are a few things that I question when I hear schools talk about solely “data driven”.
First of all, nothing works for everyone. Nothing. So when we look at “proven methods”, we are often looking at something that is more focused on the “system” than an individual, kids still get left behind. We might get a better “grade” at the end as a system, but we are still failing kids. If something worked for 100% of kids, we would all know it, and we would all do it.
Secondly, there are often so many things that are going on in school, how can we really compartmentalize the “one thing” that works? For example, let’s say your school is focusing on the thoughtful use of technology in classroom, health and wellness, and improved assessment, and you see an increase in grades through the school. Which initiative led to the increase or how much did anyone single initiative lead to whatever score you are looking for? Unless you isolate something it is hard to tell what is successful.
This leads to another issue…what is the measure of success? You may see an increase in test scores but kids might hate coming to school every day, because it is easy to teach to a test, while also killing a love of learning in our students. You can also see that you can improve a score in anything if you put a massive focus on it. If you have a school or district focusing solely on “literacy scores”, leading to more hours focusing on traditional literacy (reading and writing) in the classroom, other things get lost in the shuffle. Many organizations are looking for people who are creative, yet you see many programs in arts education that promote this creativity getting cut in search of “better test scores”. So then what? When we focus on becoming great at one thing, something else usually gives. So what is important and what isn’t?
But maybe I am way off with these thoughts. I am not saying that data is not necessary, but more importantly, that we question how we got the data in the first place. I recently read a blog post titled, “The Lack of Evidence Based Practice; The Case of Classroom Technology“, where the author talks about how the use of technology has not increased “academic achievement”, and I would not argue this at all. Adding technology to your schools often only makes your it “school plus computer”. If you are not looking to change teaching and learning practice because of these technologies, obviously nothing will change. But there is to more what is happening than any number can tell us, and that is why questioning the data in the first place is extremely important. I also think there is a great irony that many school district statements “vision and mission statements” say very little about test scores, but when they measure if they are successful, that becomes the biggest driver.
So it is essential to find a balance. We have to still look at “what works” from other places, and ask questions to dive deeper. But we also have to still develop the “innovator’s mindset” in educators to encourage them to develop new ideas that may help the kids in front of them right now. If we wait for everything to be researched before we use it, we are going to lose a lot of kids. Before something was researched, somebody tried it first with no data to support if it would be successful or not. That is why relationships are so important in education. Understanding who the learner is in front of you will often lead to creating new solutions for that child. They don’t have the time for you to wait.
Data is important, but so is the ability to be adaptive and flexible. We have to look at what works, what has worked, ask questions why it worked, but also look to create new and better opportunities for the students in front of us. If we don’t look to people within the education system to be innovative, why would we expect kids leaving the system to do the same?
