The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, and standards and assessments here). This post focuses on the third of six selection criteria: data systems.
Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 points)
C1. Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Perhaps this is overconfidence talking here, but Washington has made some pretty good progress on its statewide longitudinal data system, and will continue to move toward the type of system the U.S. Department of Education is looking for. The first thing in Washington’s favor is the four-year Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant we were awarded in June 2009 by the Department of Education. When fully developed, the system will provide longitudinal assessments of student and teacher growth, useful data that aligns curriculum with desired student outcomes, and transparency of information with a demonstration of governmental accountability to students, parents, taxpayers, policymakers and other stakeholders. In short, Washington has already indicated its commitment to fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system.
The second thing in our favor is the passage of ESHB 2261 in April 2009. ESHB 2261 supports the expansion of the state’s data system to be one that links student, educator, and financial information. Elements expected in the data system include linked student and educator data; common coding of courses and major areas of study; a common, standardized structure for reporting the costs of programs; separate accounting of state, federal, and local revenues and costs; information linking state funding formulas to school district budgeting and accounting; information that is centrally accessible and updated regularly; and a non-identifiable copy of data that is updated at least quarterly and made available to the public.
Finally, Washington put a law on the books in 2007 that calls for collection of P-20 data in Education Data Center housed in the Office of Financial Management.
Now, all Washington needs to do is follow through and actually implement all these things, which is no small task to be sure.
C2. Accessing and using state data (5 points)
As referenced above, Washington has put in statute the intent to make statewide data more accessible to everyone — educators, parents, researchers, policymakers, data nerds, etc., etc. We definitely have some work to do in this area, but efforts are already underway.
C3. Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
i) Increase the acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems to help teachers, principals and administrators inform and improve their instructional practice, decision-making and overall effectiveness
ii) Support participating school districts in providing professional development to teachers, principals and administrators on how to use these systems
iii) Make data from instructional improvement systems, together with statewide longitudinal data system data, available and accessible to researchers
This is the data area where Washington as a state needs the most improvement. Yes, the state makes WASL data available to educators; however, that data is not always available in a timely or useful way. Teachers do not know if little Calvin struggled with numeracy, addition, fractions or all three when he earned a 2 on the math WASL. This sort of information would be helpful to educators and parents, especially before August and promotion decisions have been made. Diagnostic and interim assessments could be great tools for the state to make available to districts so teachers can better know where students start the year and how they are progressing. Washington could approach this multiple ways. There are a slew of off-the-shelf diagnostic and interim assessments. No, they don’t always line up directly to Washington standards, and they are often only available in reading and math, but they provide more insight into students’ basic skills than non-existent alternatives. Washington could also offer practice WASLs at the beginning and middle of the year, to be scored by teachers/building staff, which would give schools more opportunity to target those students who are struggling. And those are just two ideas, not mutually exclusive of one another, and certainly not exhaustive.
Next up: great teachers and leaders.
