540 Session 5

I found myself getting lost in some of the data this week.

For instance, I was concerned at first because my district scored lower in 10th grade math than many of the other schools in our conference in the advanced+proficient scores on the WKCE in 2008. When I changed the search to just advanced scores, however, we came out ahead of all the other districts. So, the thoughts kept rolling... It now made more sense to my why we have a professional development strand on poverty, and possibly why the high school faculty was forced to take a data-driven decision-making strand.

It seems possible, according to the score discrepency, our district may do a good job addressing the needs of our advanced-level learner, but we may not be doing a very good job of advancing enough of our average- and lower-level learners to proficient. Because of their depndency on adults, the poverty vs. the middle class divide in learning is more evident at the elementary and middle school levels than it is at the high school level where students are a bit more elusive about their home life. Therefore, it is more important to share the data with the high school faculty (keep in mind I have spent most of my career there) and lead them to make decisions based on the same data.

Now, this is only supposition, but it makes sense. I didn't look at any of the district's data on income level, and none of this data has been correlated to the income levels of the students. I will, though, inquire as to what data has driven the decisions to pursue the current professional development strands. (Heck, maybe date didn't drive the decisions, but I enjoyed thinking about it.)

I wonder if this data would be a good addition to my musings...