|
Sitemap
| Jobs
|
Contact Us
|
Building Smart Education Systems |
Voices in Urban Education
Archives
Using Data for Decisions
VUE Number 18, Winter 2008
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
EXCERPT:
Flexibility and Adaptability: Building a Data System That Works for Everyone
By David Chiszar
David Chiszar is director of assessment and quality analysis for the Naperville (Illinois) Community Unit School District 203.
> Author's biography
Faced with demands from a wide range of constituents, a district built a data system to provide a broad array of information.
All data ever did for me was create more questions.
— Anonymous
Naperville Community Unit School District 203, a 19,000-pupil district located twenty miles west of Chicago, has a history of using data to understand the effects of instruction. Where the district is today is different from where it was even a year ago, and next year will again be different. Just as schools are engaged in a continuous improvement process, so we in the district central office are continually improving the processes to collect, analyze, disseminate, and act on data.
By describing the path our district has taken in its continuous improvement process, we hope to illustrate the lessons we have learned. Our goal in sharing the stories in this article is to highlight some successes, share some growing pains, and offer suggestions on how to avoid the traps.
Overhauling an Out-of-Date System
About two years ago, the district hit a wall — a data wall. The systems we had for reporting data were not meeting our needs. Like many systems, our reporting system was built over time by adding parts and, in some cases, forcing them to work together. Faced with the data wall, we stepped back and took a clean look at why we had the reporting system in the first place. What questions were we trying to answer? What processes were we were using to answer them?
We found good things but also not-so-good things. The not-so-good things were, generally, not so good because of the limitations we had in the reporting systems, the detail of the data available to help create those reports, and, ultimately, the accuracy of the data. A look back had us asking: how did we get here? Why did we move down a road that, in the end, limited what we could do?
“You only know what you know,” a wise person once said. When the district started the development of the “old” system, it was not really a system. Data warehousing, use of a data mart, statistical modeling, and multivariate analysis were not in the mix. Neither were Web-based displays or the technology to allow instant access to all staff. We added the parts we could to the parts that were in place as time passed and, in the end, we had a system that worked but that was inefficient and that limited what we needed to do.
Determining Constituent Needs
The first task was to determine if what we had could be upgraded to meet our needs. To make that judgment, we first had to make sure what everyone's needs were. We formed an assessment committee and held meetings among various staff and people representing various constituents around the district. Out of those meetings and subsequent discussions we created the vision of what we ultimately wanted and a map of how to attain that vision. The vision called for electronic student portfolios; multivariate, time-sensitive pictures of student performance; growth models that would show improvement in student learning over time; and evaluation and benchmarking.
Archives
Using Data for Decisions
VUE Number 18, Winter 2008
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
EXCERPT:
Flexibility and Adaptability: Building a Data System That Works for Everyone
By David Chiszar
David Chiszar is director of assessment and quality analysis for the Naperville (Illinois) Community Unit School District 203.
> Author's biography
Faced with demands from a wide range of constituents, a district built a data system to provide a broad array of information.
All data ever did for me was create more questions.
— Anonymous
Naperville Community Unit School District 203, a 19,000-pupil district located twenty miles west of Chicago, has a history of using data to understand the effects of instruction. Where the district is today is different from where it was even a year ago, and next year will again be different. Just as schools are engaged in a continuous improvement process, so we in the district central office are continually improving the processes to collect, analyze, disseminate, and act on data.
By describing the path our district has taken in its continuous improvement process, we hope to illustrate the lessons we have learned. Our goal in sharing the stories in this article is to highlight some successes, share some growing pains, and offer suggestions on how to avoid the traps.
Overhauling an Out-of-Date System
About two years ago, the district hit a wall — a data wall. The systems we had for reporting data were not meeting our needs. Like many systems, our reporting system was built over time by adding parts and, in some cases, forcing them to work together. Faced with the data wall, we stepped back and took a clean look at why we had the reporting system in the first place. What questions were we trying to answer? What processes were we were using to answer them?
We found good things but also not-so-good things. The not-so-good things were, generally, not so good because of the limitations we had in the reporting systems, the detail of the data available to help create those reports, and, ultimately, the accuracy of the data. A look back had us asking: how did we get here? Why did we move down a road that, in the end, limited what we could do?
“You only know what you know,” a wise person once said. When the district started the development of the “old” system, it was not really a system. Data warehousing, use of a data mart, statistical modeling, and multivariate analysis were not in the mix. Neither were Web-based displays or the technology to allow instant access to all staff. We added the parts we could to the parts that were in place as time passed and, in the end, we had a system that worked but that was inefficient and that limited what we needed to do.
Determining Constituent Needs
The first task was to determine if what we had could be upgraded to meet our needs. To make that judgment, we first had to make sure what everyone's needs were. We formed an assessment committee and held meetings among various staff and people representing various constituents around the district. Out of those meetings and subsequent discussions we created the vision of what we ultimately wanted and a map of how to attain that vision. The vision called for electronic student portfolios; multivariate, time-sensitive pictures of student performance; growth models that would show improvement in student learning over time; and evaluation and benchmarking.
|
Annenberg Institute for School Reform Brown University, Box 1985 Providence, RI 02912 |
Telephone: 401.863.7790 Fax: 401.863.1290 |
AISR_info@brown.edu
|
© all material AISR