This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
November/December 2002

Additional use of data

District-wide strategic planning is not the only way Decatur is using data.

On another day, in another building, Decatur School District 61 brought together members of site-based management teams from each of its elementary and middle schools to examine their progress under the guidance of New American Schools. NAS is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase student achievement through comprehensive school reform.

The management teams were convened to look over Formative Evaluation Process for School Improvement (FEPSI) data. According to Rich Buckler, director of research and information, data included a school climate inventory, a comprehensive school reform teacher questionnaire, a teacher focus group interview, a principal phone interview and school observation measures.

To lead the discussion, the district brought in Steven Ross of the University of Memphis. Ross is executive director of the Center for Research in Educational Policy, which developed FEPSI, as well as the author of textbooks and journal articles on at-risk learners and educational reform, among other topics.

"The state of Illinois is doing more than any other state to encourage schools to use data and make formative evaluation part of the improvement process," Ross told the assembled group. "But collecting formative data is not the same as using it."

During this gathering, management teams had a chance to go over their data, look at emerging trends and think about the changes that might need to be made ... either for the staff or students.

While most of the school teams were not surprised by their data, they were able to begin to form ideas of how to approach problems ... and to how to rejoice over some of the good news that emerged.

At Brush College Elementary School, which uses the Accelerated Schools reform model, leaders want to develop an action plan for more formal training in their reform model, something they see as necessary if the entire school is to move forward in the improvement program. Washington Elementary, which uses the Modern Red Schoolhouse model, wants to look closer at parental involvement in order to deal with behavioral problems. Thomas Jefferson Middle School, which uses the Turning Points model, planned to examine strengths and weakness as listed in the climate survey to address problems with behavior and the teachers' need for common planning times.

For Ross, seeing this many site-based management teams together in one room, using data and planning for the future is like a conductor fine-tuning before a symphony. The individual noises produced from each building may sound like discord, and it may take a lot of practice before a unified song emerges. But the final result should be everyone participating in a harmonious performance.

In the case of school districts, the goal of that performance will be increased student achievement.