Walk-Throughs and Data-based Observations

Can data-based observations be used in walk-throughs? Yes, and doing so can greatly improve the usability and acceptability of the results. But first one must determine the purpose of the walk through. 

 

In the ASCD Journal Educational Leadership, Jan, 2008 issue (Vol 65, No 4) is a section "What Research Says About..." by Jane David, director of the Bay Area Research Group, and it's topic is Classroom Walk Throughs. She makes it clear that walk throughs are "...not intended to evaluate individual teachers or principals or even to identify them by name in postobservation reports. rather, the goals of walk-throughs are to help administrators and teachers learn more about instruction and to identify what training and support teachers need."

 

With that purpose in mind, focusing on a single behavior and gathering objective data as opposed to the checklists typically used will help relieve the fears about bias of the observer. Gathering the same data in all classrooms (Class Learning Time, Wait Time, Level of Question, etc) can present a much more useful picture of the instruction in the school, and provide the basis for professional discussions.

 

Checklists, even when they are focused on observed behavior, are nearly always a record of the observer's impression of what is happening in the classroom. For example, walk through checklists often include an item on student engagement, and the choices are some form of 'poor, good, great' or 'none, few, some, most, all'. The item is checked based on the observer's impression or estimate of the level of engagement.

 

However, it's quite simple to use a data collection tool to do time sampled data collection of each student's level of engagement by doing sweeps of the classroom and recording the on/off task behavior of each student at that instance. In a classroom of 30 students, a sweep can easily be done in 90 seconds; the total time for the recommended 5 sweeps is less than 8 minutes. The results are an objective picture of the on/off task behavior of the entire class. When this is repeated for the entire school, the results can form a basis for decision making regarding goal setting and teacher support AND serve as the basis for determining actual change over time.

A series of 'impressions' is of much less value than a series of data based observations.

 

Be sure that the teachers are clear regarding the use of the data (not for evaluation, no names recorded), and that they are involved in the interpretation of the results. La Paz Middle School in Salinas, CA organized a data-collection day (it actually took a couple of days) where teachers gathered data in each other's classrooms using five laptops. Since the task is not one of judging or ranking behavior, but simply gathering data the potential for engaging the full staff will go far toward building a professional community engaged in a common endeavor.

Observation checklists versus observation data

I've looked at a couple dozen books on how to conduct a classroom/teacher observations and have downloaded another 30 or so observation forms used by various districts across the country. I'm struck by the general nature of most of them, and by the lack of specifics in the descriptors. The rating scales used run from observed/not observed to met/not met to a 5 to 7 likert scale. Some of the forms used by districts are designed to record anecdotal notes without a rating scale and/or with the evaluation of the performance on another summary page.

An example: This 'standard' came from a school district set of guidelines for conducting observations: "Establishes and maintains an orderly and supportive environment for students", and is, in one form or another, pretty common in standards.

I just can't see how a checklist or scale is helpful, let alone accurate, as a record of what happened in the class. If the observer checks 'observed', does that mean the class was at one point orderly and supportive? Or does it mean that when things started to get disorderly, the teacher responded and brought the class back in focus? Or, since the phrase 'supportive environment' is also included, does that 'observed' indicate that the teacher made positive, encouraging statements? To all the students? Could the observer be satisfied with student work being posted on the walls, and a 'student of the week' bulletin board being present -- that's certainly supportive.

And if the class was orderly some of the time and not others, and the observer checks 'not observed', wouldn't the teacher respond with "Are you saying my class was never orderly? Or that I was never supportive? Or both?"

Observed/ not observed doesn't work. It does not convey any helpful information and will lead to conflict between the observer and observee.

So what about a scale? Scales are typically designed to be either a 1 to 5 (poor to great) or a rubric of 'unsatisfactory, basic, emerging, competent, distinguished' type. Some of them will have descriptors for each of the levels, the worst being the range from 'did not observe/ observed some of the time/ observed most of the time/ observed all of the time'. These descriptors are worthless as they are nearly impossible to mark in a way that conveys what happened. For example, if the class was orderly for the first 3 minutes and then in chaos the rest of the time, the orderly standard would actually be met 'some of the time'. Actually, if the class were orderly up to 49% of the time, the same checkbox would apply; and if things were orderly 51% to 99% of the time it would be 'most of the time'.

There are other descriptors or indicators for each of the levels that seem more specific. For example, Charlotte Danielson in her Framework for Teaching has a standard for Management of Instructional Groups with a proficient level of competence described as "Tasks for group work are organized, and groups are managed so most students are engaged at all times." In the many districts who use some variation of Danielson's work as their standards, the observer would be asked to judge if the teacher was at this level during the current observation.

Skip the fact that there are two behaviors in this indicator - organizing tasks and managing groups - which also confuses the issue, and just look at the act of making that determination of worth based on the second behavior. When you watch a typical classroom, the complexity in deciding if 'most' (is that 51% or is it really a higher target than that?) 'are engaged' (physically or mentally? engaged in low level or high level work?) 'at all times' (what would be the determination if the full class went off task for 3 minutes?), has such wide variation across classrooms and observers that the validity is suspect.

In discussions with administrators, what I find very often happens is that the observer adds additional criteria to the specific situation. 'Most students' sometimes turns into almost everyone in the class (a higher standard that stated); 'engaged' equates to looking and acting busy without regard for the level or quality of engagement; and 'at all times' is ignored in lieu of an unspoken criteria of 'most of the time'. If the class is known to have kids with behavior problems or the number of students is high, the criteria is functionally lowered.

What's really happening is that the observer has internally defined a level that is satisfactory to him or her based on personal experiences, the makeup of the class, and the relationship with the teacher, and that definition is applied unevenly across classrooms. That inconsistency is confusing to everyone, and the results of classroom observations can not be compiled across the building, let alone the district, as a basis for broad decisions. The system has a built in subjectivity and personal interpretation of the standards that makes it difficult for any observer to be consistent and fair.

Rating scales don't work, especially when extremely little effort is put into rater reliability and clear statement of the objectives and indicators.

Data based observations can make a significant difference. Some of the texts on classroom observations provide steps on how to turn a judgment on a rating scale into numbers and then process those numbers as if they were data -- but given all the issues with rating scales I believe this to be a false path.

Instead, I recommend using the Data-Based Observation Method, a 5 step process that includes the actual collection of observable behavior data. The steps are:

1. Identify the standards. Be sure that they are worded so that observable behaviors demonstrating those standards can be clearly identified.
Good standard: Students will be engaged in learning activities. Bad standard: Teachers will act in an ethical and professional manner at all times (what does 'ethical' look like?).

2. Create indicators. Be sure that they describe the observable behavior identified in the standard.
Good indicator: Students will listen attentively to the teacher, be productively engaged in individual work, or contribute to the work of a small group. Bad indicator: Students will follow teacher instructions as given (too vague and general).

3. Set criteria. As a profession, we've not engaged in setting criteria for ourselves in concrete terms, so this part is a new conversation. What is the criteria for engaging students in learning? Should they be engaged 25% of the time? No, that's clearly too low. How about 50% of the time -- still sounds low. What about 95% of the time? Too high for real classes? The answer here is not to set the criteria arbitralily, but to turn to (or conduct) research to establish a criteria in which we can have confidence.

If the standard is an important one, and the indicators are valid, there will be a correlation between the behavior observed (such as student engagement) and the final desired outcome (student learning). We need to find those connections and use them as guides for improving teaching. We actually have research that identifies a significant number of them, but we're not applying that research at the classroom level.

4. Design data collection tools. I developed the eCOVE Classroom Observation Software as an easy and efficient way to collect the objective data, but you can use pencil and paper, a stop watch, the wall clock in the classroom, etc. to collect the data once you've carefully identified what data is important to collect.
Good tool: A counter tracking on/off task behavior and using the time sample data collection method to record the percent of time engaged and the percent of time not engaged for the entire class.. By using the time sample data collection approach and repeated sweeps of the class to record the on/off task behavior of each student, a quite accurate data-based, objective picture of the class behavior is produced. This becomes a factual basis for making decisions. Other useful tools include Class Learning Time, Level of Questions, Teacher Talk/Student Talk, and other tools reflecting research on best teaching practices.

5. Analyze and interpret the data. Did it meet the criteria? Is there a need or desire for a change? Given the context (number and diversity of the students, physical space, materials at hand, etc) what is most likely to bring a positive change? When and where will the new approach be initiated? When will the next set of data be collected, analyzed, and interpreted?

For the greatest success, it's critical to operate with the belief that every vested interest be involved in this process. Administrators, teachers, parents, aides, students, counselors, etc. all have an important contribution to make where the purpose of the observation is the improvement of teaching and learning.

-----------

I'm coming to realize what a big shift this is in the education field. We've tried to cite 'professional judgment' when the inconsistency in the process and the unreliability of the results support neither the process nor the conclusions. Serious collaborative discussions are needed to move to a more concrete basis for judging what we say we value, and how to use the specifics to guide the improvement of teaching.

And where should we start......? Let me think about that -- I suspect
it's with a reexamination of the standards. More to come :-)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Plan of Assistance and Data-Based Observations

While at the National Association of Elementary School Principals' convention in Seattle, I spent some time talking to Steve C., a retired principal who now contracts with districts to work with teachers on a plan of assistance. The teachers he works with are typically having some serious difficulties and are at the intervention stage of help. He's worked with teachers for many years, and talked about how using eCOVE and data-based observations has changed the entire playing field.

In many/most instances across the country, the plan of assistance is a combined process of making what is expected of the teacher very clear and specific, while gathering ancedotal notes to support a decision to fire/non-renew the teacher. The teacher is in a last ditch effort to demonstrate a satisfactory level of teaching or classroom management with the only thing different being the administrator in the classroom taking notes. This has got to rank among the highest stressful conditions anyone could ever work under.

When I think about these teachers, I put them into three categories: a teacher who is in a truly overwhelming situation with out of control students, lack of materials, lack of support, etc. This is the kind of environment where all but the very, very best would struggle and fail. Putting the teacher on a plan of assistance that is focused on the teacher changing is unfair, but commonly done. Data-based observations in this case can be useful if data is gathered not only on teacher behavior but also on student behavior, outside interruptions, and other systemic influences with an honest effort to determine what is going awry and what are the causes of the problems. It maybe that the teacher does need additional skills -- along with a change in the classroom conditions that are not within the power of the teacher to enact. The data will help determine the difference.

The second category is the teacher who is having difficulty with a reasonably normal class of students, but can't get a handle on what to do about it. These are often new teachers or teachers inexperienced with the particular group of students. They generally are making consistent, but ineffectual efforts to do a good job and are frequently a contributing factor in the non-productive classroom. Basically, this is a potentially good teacher who has gotten buried under the problems, and is at the burn-out, give-up, and quit stage. However, these are teachers that are worth the effort to support and data-based observations can really help.

By providing non-judgmental, objective data on the teacher's actions and the student's responses to those actions, the teacher, with guidance and support, can determine the cause and effects related to the issues, and design changes. The effectiveness of those changes can be tracked and the data will determine the value of the outcomes. Providing the data in a supportive atmosphere can empower the teacher to see ways to make changes and determine the efficacy of those changes. And at the same time that the specific issues are being attended to, the teacher is building a life-long skill of reflection and growth.

The third group are those teachers that, sad to say, do not have the skills, knowledge, or capacity to change their behaviors. It can be a lack of interest, a lack of effort, or a basic lack of the personality and skills of a teacher. In any case, these people, nice though they maybe, should not be functioning as teachers, and need to be counseled and/or forced out of the classroom.

The very best outcome of this plan of assistance is for the teacher to take a careful, reflective look at their own skills and values, and come to the conclusion that they are better suited for another career path. However, anyone approached by an evaluator who has the power to fire them and who is in the room taking notes and making judgments will bring up the stress level and engage every defense mechanism available. That can be shifting the blame, bringing in an attorney, building support among the staff and community regarding this 'unfair' treatment, etc -- in the end, this is a lose-lose situation for everyone, including the kids.

By approaching the issue through data-based observations, some significant things change. The teacher is provided with an objective picture of the actions in the classroom, which should be coupled with a clear description of the requirements for satisfactory performance. Subsequent efforts on the part of the teacher, if truly inept, will not show significant changes, and this non-judgmental picture is often the key to a person's level-headed decision to change professions - that best of all worlds decision.

But there will be conditions where the individual will continue to deflect responsibility that is appropriately theirs, and in spite of no data to show satisfactory performance, will continue to resist leaving the classroom. I feel for these folks as it's often a move that will cause embarrassment and economic hardships -- but for the sake of the children, it's necessary to remove this person from the classroom. If the process has included clear statements of expectations, and an ongoing record of objective data collection of relevant behaviors showing that they do not meet the expectations, the decision to remove that person is much, much more defensible. Judgments about a person's ability can easily be subject to bias; you will strengthen the entire structure when you add objective data collection.

Steve's experience, of the people he's been involved with on plans of assistance, is that approximately 60% either decide to change occupations or are removed by the district. However, a full forty percent turn from struggling teachers to competent professionals. And as it is with teachers - when you can step in a help a struggling individual overcome the obstacles, you get to experience the joy that's the special gift to educators - the joy of helping another human rise to their potential.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Students and Data-Based Observation

Lots of good teachers, me included, work quite hard to get student to think at a 'higher level'. In Bloom's Taxonomy this would be in the Analysis/Synthesis level, or in some thoughtful response to a divergent question. Thinking at a higher level about the content at hand would be great, but a deeper desire is just that they exercise their brains for more than stimulus-response game playing or repeating the obvious.

After years of challenging, encouraging, praising, modeling I came to the conclusion that higher order thinking will only naturally (not forced) occur if the topic is related to the life of the student. It the broad sense, related can be as simple as having fun...solving puzzles, creating new ideas...self-directed mental challenges that end up with the intrinsic reward of a self-approved solution.

And now that I'm engrossed with data based observation, I have discovered something quite interesting - give kids data on their own behavior, either as an individual or as a group, and they go immediately to the analytic level, and love it. They will reflect, think divergently, propose and test changes, and anxiously look forward to the next round of higher order thinking.

And it's a pretty easy step to transfer that analytic thinking to school related content -- "Remember how 40% of your statements to each other were negative? How does that relate to the X versus Y conflict (take your pick)?" or "Compare your individual time-on-task rate with the campaign promises of President X (take your pick) for greater government efficiency."

My observation is that the data collected needs to be real (not how many are wearing red, or how many pencils were dropped), and best if collaboratively identified as something of interest. Assigning a student to be the data gatherer further engages them.

Tools I've seen used with students include Time On Task, Positive/Negative, Verbal Tics, Bloom's Taxonomy (levels of questions answered or asked by students), Teacher Travel (tracking what % each part of the room was engaged in a discussion), and of course, the Generic Tools. Entering the names (Generic Timer) of a small group working on a project together and then tracking the % of time each contributed to the discussion is enlightening.

Give them the data and ask "Is this what you thought was happening?" "Why/Why not?" "Is there a need for a change?"... and away you go.

powered by performancing firefox

Professional Development Rubrics

There seems to be some conversation about the right term for these-- rubrics, scoring guides, continuums, etc., but I'm sure we are all picturing the same table of headings describing a scale from not-good to great.

In the business world, and somewhat in education, they are also called Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS). I'm adding one word to that, making it Data-based Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (D-BARS). If you ever see that somewhere else, you can say you know where it started.

If you're adopting, amending, writing your own D-BARS, there are some errors to avoid lest the outcome be less than helpful to the observer and observee.

A very common error has to do with creating a continuum of behavior indicators. Since across the top of these documents is a scale that progresses from one extreme to the other, conceptually with no gaps or overlaps between the divisions, the D-BARS (the physical observable behavior that exemplifies each division) should also be a continuum. As I look at these documents from across the country and world, one of the most common errors is that the actual behavior being used as an indicator changes from one division/cell to another. It shouldn't. What should be described is one behavior across the continuum, poor to great. An example.....

The target standard/behavior is "Teachers involve and guide all students in assessing their own learning." The category headings are Unsatisfactory, Emerging, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished.

The behavior indicator for the Unsatisfactory level is "Students do not assess their own learning." That's a clear statement, but there's more to the unsatisfactory level than no assessment at all. Students might be assessing themselves once a year, unguided, inaccurately, using the wrong criteria, etc. The descriptor for Unsatisfactory should describe the range of indicators, all of which are unsatisfactory.

The next level, Emerging, has this as a behavior indicator: "Teacher checks student work and communicates progress through the report card." This indicator is unrelated to student assessment of their own learning, and doesn't provide the guidance for whoever would use the D-BARS to clearly be able to determine the difference between Unsatisfactory and Emerging. This statement might fit well in a target standard related to 'communicating progress to students', and in that standard might well fit in the 'Emerging' category.

Perhaps (and this is brainstorming - collaborative discussion needed)...

Emerging would be "Students are asked to state/guess what their grade on an assignment will be." or "Students are asked to grade each other's papers without the use of a scoring guide." [Students are assessing their work related to grades, and with little guidance]

The Basic category could be something akin to "Students are assessed by the teacher according to a scoring guide and asked to describe why they agree/disagree with the grade." [Students are asked to apply the scoring guide in their reflection, but do not actually self-assess]

A descriptor for the Proficient level might be "Using a teacher provided scoring guide, students are asked to assess their work before they hand it in to the teacher." [Students assess their work according to a scoring guide]

And finally, the Distingished level could read "Using collaboratively developed (teacher and students) scoring guides, students are engaged in self and peer assessment of progress toward meeting the standards." [Students are engaged and guided in the process of creating the criteria, and then applying that criteria to themselves and others.]

I would hope that there would be discussion about my choices and wording, as this is only to illustrate the need for a continuum in the described behavior indicators.

The next thinking might be about what are the keystone observable behaviors that should be tracked to gather data on "Involving and guiding students in assessing their own learning." Is it the amount of time students are engaged in assessing learning? The number of references to standards made by the teacher? The number and or level of questions asked by students related to assessment and standards? Every observer who makes a determination of level is doing so on the basis of something they see. We need to come to consensus concerning what's valid and reliable.

Thoughts after a presentation on Observation Reliability

This is an email sent to a person who requested a copy of the powerpoint presentation I did on Observation Reliability where I presented my new idea about the sequence from research to standards to indicators to data collection to teacher support and evaluation. If you'd like to see the Powerpoint send me an email.
------------
When I first wrote eCOVE I was focused on giving helpful feedback to student teachers. From years of working with student teachers and new teachers I knew that they needed help thinking through the problems that came up in their classrooms. Providing them with 'my' answers and ideas was of much less benefit that getting them to think through things and devise their own solutions.

I also knew, again from personal experiences working with them, that giving them data (pencil and paper before eCOVE) help them honestly reflect on their own actions and outcomes, and it also greatly diminished the fear factor that came with the 'evaluator' role of a supervisor.

When I first started working with administrators and eCOVE I was totally focused on changing their role from judge to support and staff development. I preached hard that working collaboratively would have great effects and would/could create a staff of self-directed professionals. I still strongly believe that, and have enough feedback to feel confirmed.

However, a recent conversation with an ex-student, now an administrator, has added to my perspective. He likes eCOVE and would love to use it except that his district has a 20 page (gulp!) evaluation system that he needs to complete while observing - so he doesn't have the time to work with teachers. We agree that it's a waste of time, and corrupts the opportunity for collaborative professionalism.

As I thought about his situation and the hours of development time that went into the creation and adoption of that 'evaluation guide', I realized that my approach to observation as staff development had ignored the reality of the required and necessary role of administrator as evaluator. The guide that he's stuck with seems to me to be the main flaw in the process, and what I believe is wrong with it (and the thousands in use across the country) is that they ask the observer to make a series of poorly defined judgments based on a vaguely defined set of 'standards'. It's an impossible task and is functionally a terrible and ineffectual burden on both administrators and teachers.

When I thought about how a standards based system might be improved, I developed the basis for the idea in the powerpoint - Standards should be based on research; the implementation of the standard should be in some way observable, if not directly then by keystone indicators; the criteria for an acceptable level of performance should be concrete and collaboratively determined. I say collaboratively since I believe that administrators, teachers, parents, and the general public all have value to add to the process of educating our youth. Setting those criterial levels in terms of observable behavior data should, again, be based on research, and confirmed by localized action research efforts. That's not as difficult as it sounds when the systematic process already includes data collection.

For the last couple of years, whenever I presented eCOVE I made a big point of saying that I was against set data targets for all teachers, that the context played such a big part in it all that only the teacher could interpret the data. I think now that I was wrong about that, partially at least. A simple example might be wait time - the time between a question and calling on a student for an answer. There's lots of research that shows a wait time of 3 seconds has consistent positive benefits. While I'm sure it's not the exact time of 3 seconds that is critical, the researched recommendation is a useful concrete measure. If a teacher waits less than one second (the research on new teachers), the children are robbed of the opportunity to think, and that's not OK. An important facet of the process I'm proposing has to do with how the data is presented and used. My experience has been that the first approach to a teacher should be "Is this what you thought was happening?" This question, honestly asked, will empower the teacher and engage him or her in the process of reflection, interpretation, and problem solving. During the ensuing professional level discussion, the criteria for the acceptable level of student engagement is a 3 second wait period should be included, and that's the measure to be used in the final evaluation. For, in the end, a judgment does have to be made, but it should not be based on the observer's opinion or value system, but on set measurable criteria -- criteria set and confirmed by sound research.

A more complex example - class learning time. The standard illustrated in the powerpoint stated that 'students should be engaged in learning', a commonly included standard in most systems. There is extensive research that indicates that the more time a student is engaged in learning activities, the greater will be the learning. While the research does not propose a specific percent of learning time as a recommended criteria, I believe we as a profession can at least identify the ranges for unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exceptional. I think we'd all agree that if a class period had only 25 % of the time organized for teaching and/or student engagement in learning activities, it would be absolutely unsatisfactory. Or is that number 35%? 45%? 60%? What educator would be comfortable with a class where 40% of the time lacked any opportunity for students to learn. I don't know what the right number is, but I am confident that it is possible to come to a consensus over a minimum level. Class Learning time is a good example of a keystone data set - something that underlies the basic concept in the standard 'engaged students'. I know there are others.

But then my personal experience as a teacher comes into focus, and the objection "How can you evaluate me on something I don't have full control over?" pops up. I remember my lesson plans not working out when the principal took 10 minutes with a PA announcement and there were 4 interruptions from people with important messages or requests for information or students. How could it be fair to be concerned about my 50% learning time when there were all these outside influences?

That would be a valid concern where the evaluation system is based on the observer's perception and judgment, but less so when based on data collection. It is an easy task to set up the data collection to identify the non-learning time by sub categories - time under the teacher's control and time when an outside event took the control away from the teacher. The time under the teacher's control should meet the criteria for acceptable performance; the total time should be examined for needed systematic changes to provide the teacher with the full allotment of teaching/learning time. Basing the inspection of school functioning on observable behavior data will reveal many possible solutions for problems currently included in the observer's impression of teaching effectiveness.

It's reasonable to be suspicious of data collected and used as an external weapon, and for that reason I believe it to be critical that the identification of the keystone research and indicators, and the setting of the target level be a collaborative process. Add to that the realization that good research continues to give us new knowledge about teaching and learning, and with that the process should be in a constant state of discussion and revision. That's my vision of how a profession works - critical self-examination and improvement.

So now my thinking has come to a point where I believe (tentatively, at least) that we have sufficient research to develop standards, or to better focus the standards we do have; that we can identify keystone indicators for those standards; that we can use our collective wisdom to determine concrete levels for acceptability in those keystone indicators; that we can train observers to accurately observe and gather data; and that that data can be used to both further the teacher's self-directed professional growth and to ensure that the levels of effective performance as indicated by sound research are met.

I'm hoping that my colleagues in the education field (and beyond) will join in this discussion and thinking. What is your reaction? Can you give me "Yes, but what if.....?" instances? Do we really have the credible research to provide us with keystone indicators? How could a system like this be abused? How could we guard against the abuse?

Observations, standards, teachers, administrators

I'm sure I'll stumble around for a while, but I hope to both consolidate my thoughts and lure others into a discussion of data-based observations, teacher support and evaluation, standards, and how all this can be improved.

My disclaimer - I wrote a piece of software for collecting timer and counter data while observering classrooms. it's called eCOVE Classroom Observation Toolkit and you can download a trial version at www.ecove.net.

However, that's my failed retirement activity. Here at least I'm more interested in exploring how supporting teacher professional development can be enhanced through objective feedback. Most current administrator observations are a process of impressions and judgments, sometimes based on a district set of standards, sometimes not. This isn't working to the benefit of teachers who want to further their skills, but is generally just a task for both administrator and teacher to get past. That's a shame and I think there is a better way.

The central idea is if an observation gathers data on teacher and/or student observable behaviors and that data is presented to the teacher for reflection and interpretation, those intelligent, educated and professional individuals are fully capable of self-directed professional development. The data has to be meaningful and should reflect what a teacher wants to know about their own classroom and students.

So please join in, lengthy or brief. Agree or disagree. Post questions or thoughts or solutions.