Big Data and New Nomenclature

President's Corner

This month’s School Administrator is all about big data. Wow, where do I begin?

Everything we do seems to be about data these days. That can be a good thing, but it also can be very problematic.

Across this country, school districts are constantly working with staff to look at data. We’re disaggregating, analyzing and synthesizing data daily in an effort to enhance the educational achievement of our students. We recognize, understand and internalize that each data point represents a child or a teacher, and we are committed to improving the performance of every child and adult in our nation’s schools.

And at the same time, when we send big data off to the state and the federal government, it often feels like it’s for the purpose of judgment and ratings rather than support, affirmation and improvement.

It's my hope we get to a point in our country where Big Data — and every point of data — represents a child with a focus on improving teaching and learning in our schools as opposed to simply identifying and judging a school district, school or classroom teacher.

Over the course of the last 10 years or so, superintendents truly have transformed the way we have used data in public schools. Instead of glossing over data that’s not favorable to us and talking in generalities, we have rolled up our sleeves and looked at those areas where we may not be performing as well as we want. We have put strategies in place to reduce, eliminate and minimize the achievement gap among all student groups.

Speaking of student groups and data, Michael Hinojosa, superintendent of the Dallas Independent School District, shared with me last summer his frustration and concern with use of the term “subgroups” in relationship to No Child Left Behind and other state and federal reporting about our students and the message that word sends.

When we use the term subgroup, are we saying that those groups are substandard, subservient or subpar?

I was struck by my colleague’s comments. I consider myself as someone who always thinks about words and messages through a social justice context and lens, but it had not occurred to me the message I was sending when I was using this term.
The reality is all the groups within our schools should be classified as “student groups.” No student, student group or data set should be considered “sub” anything.

So as we move forward, I hope you’ll join me in changing the nomenclature in our country and eliminate the term subgroups. Instead, let’s focus on the term student groups, which is much more reflective of the value and ideals we hold as public school leaders.

In addition, it will be critical for our voices to be heard at the state and federal levels regarding the purposefulness of Big Data, data-collection timelines and protocols and how those should and should not be used.

I know you join with me in wanting to continue to use data to improve teaching and learning in our public school classrooms across this country. But we can’t allow for data reporting to be limited to condemning and disparaging the great work happening in our classrooms on a daily basis.

I encourage you to continue this conversation by using #leadexcellence on Twitter to discuss ways you and your colleagues have used or will use Big Data to transform teaching and learning in public schools.

I am looking forward to seeing you all next month at AASA’s National Conference on Education in Phoenix, Ariz. I’ve always enjoyed attending this conference to learn and grow professionally, as well as meet colleagues who are transforming education every day and creating innovative programs and plans to meet students where they are.