Putting FACES on the Data: What Great Leaders Do

by Lyn Sharratt

Genres: Education

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Jayden · Rating 1 out of 5]

I purchased this book because my school is using it. I am an instructional leader and coach in a disadvantaged area. I approached the book with an open mind given the positive reviews that I heard about it. By the end, however, I felt unconvinced by some of the claims made by Sharratt and Fullan.

One of my biggest concerns with the book was the heavy use of anecdotes to support the basis for FACES. I understand why Sharratt and Fullan included success stories as a means to make the book feel more personable and humanistic; however, as somebody who has an interest in empirical, peer-reviewed research, I was left in the cold here. Anecdotes from principals and headteachers, which are dotted throughout, are one of the weakest forms of evidence, yet deceivingly convincing. Often, the anecdotes are supported by tables that include quantitative data in the form of percentages and numbers, but the methods of data collection seemed sketchy. Unfortunately, the studies mentioned in FACES were not designed empirically. In one study, PM benchmarks were used as a tool to assess students' reading growth in a given school district, yet information about its administration was not given. Why were PM benchmarks used? Was the data collected in-house? Did the students' classroom teachers administer the benchmarks or were there controls in place to ensure that they were conducted with fidelity? Was there a control group to compare the results of the experimental group? Unfortunately, there is no way to seek answers to any of these questions because the statistics were framed within an anecdote. Also, there is no way to tell whether the personalisation of data (FACES) actually influenced the growth in this study. A well-designed study would be able to separate that from other variables, of which there were many. The way it was reported in the book, however, makes cross-referencing that claim and other claims made impossible.

Another concern I had was that Sharratt and Fullan made many references to 'balanced literacy' approaches and the successes that were brought out of these programs in the first half of the book. FACES is meant to be all-encompassing of different disciplines and grade levels, yet they had a preference for discussing data and instructional approaches in the area of reading. Most of the success stories that were mentioned in the book subscribed to a balanced literacy approach, including Reading Recovery. A lot of the recent research coming out of cognitive psychology at the moment shows that Reading Recovery and other balanced literacy programs are not an effective approach to teaching students how to read, particularly students who are struggling decoders. Sharratt and Fullan offer up various anecdotes that support Reading Recovery with some statistics gathered by (presumably) in-house data collection methods, but, as mentioned earlier, they are just anecdotes; the studies cannot be subjected to empirical challenge. The authors are supporters of balanced literacy, yet that should not have been as glaringly obvious as it was. This is not a book about reading instruction per se, after all. It was disappointing to see that Sharratt and Fullan took sides in the 'reading wars' debate in this book about data and did not acknowledge other approaches when discussing reading, like systematic synthetic phonics (SSP). The authors could be forgiven if the Reading Recovery method was mentioned as a success story in one anecdote, but it cropped up everywhere in the book. By the end, it felt as though the book was endorsing (at best) or marketing (at worst) the use of Reading Recovery, which detracted from the authors' argument - that FACES humanises big data.

The use of diagrams was useful, but, again, I had concerns with some of them. The authors claim that it is important for teachers and instructional leaders to not use outside-of-school factors (e.g. poverty, family violence) or internal factors (e.g. personality, disposition) as excuses for why students cannot or do not learn. I agree. However, some of the data used in the book contradict this claim. For example, Sharratt and Fullan promote the use of problem-solving cards (used in tandem with a data wall) as a strategy to identify why a student is behind in their learning, the root causes, and countermeasures to support the student. In Figure 3.7, an example of the problem-solving card is used. The problem given for this student is that they are 'below Level 3' (whatever that means). Then, the root causes given for this particular student being 'below Level 3' include the following: 'unconcerned [with learning],' 'lazy' and 'unfocused.' Finally, the countermeasures given to address these root causes include: '[attending a] boys club' and 'more frequent check-ins' (p. 82). For a book that is designed to promote the humanisation of data, saying that a student is 'lazy' is anything but humanising and shifts the blame from the teacher to the student. 'Unconcerned' and 'unfocused' are cop-out excuses that do not get to the reasons why students are not interested in learning. It is like going to a doctor and being told you are 'sick.' How is that helpful? Further, if a student is behind, attending a 'boys club' is not going to help them with their academic learning. Maybe the content is too challenging or too easy? Little references are made to the teacher's use of instructional approaches or curriculum delivery that may be impeding that particular student from learning. Unfortunately, this is not a one-off example; other examples of the problem-solving card used by teachers in the book offer similar excuses for students not learning and ineffective countermeasures. The examples given are mystifying. I like the idea of problem-solving instructional challenges with low-progress learners, but I find it disconcerting that Sharratt and Fullan chose these examples to include as exemplars. If these problem-solving cards were the best of the bunch, what does that suggest when instructional leaders go off to implement this in practice? The examples detract from the authors' plea for instructional leaders to guide teachers to focus on what THEY can do to improve learning, rather than forces beyond their control.

Overall, I found the book to be a very light and easy read, which works for some but not others. The reason the authors probably went for a more anecdotal style is to get the message across to more educators and instructional leaders - that is, to make it seem easy to do. I get that. Most of my criticisms of the book are leveled at the fact that Sharratt and Fullan's claims are light-on and unconvincing, however. There is a sprightly and energetic vibe to this book, which is buttressed by a large number of exclamation marks, including within the title ('What Great Leaders Do!'). In itself, that would not be a concern, except for the fact that - in the context of everything I mentioned above - it appears that the authors are trying to appeal to the reader's emotions more than giving rigorous evidence (ironically). There are some attractive ideas and strategies, but I think educators and instructional leaders would do well to remain cautious about the authors' claims before implementing anything in their context.

[Peter Atkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The central premise behind Sharratt and Fullan’s Putting Faces on The Data is expressed in the book’s Introduction: “To focus best, teachers need to combine technical expertise with a strong emotional connection to what they are looking at.” Of course, what they are looking at are the children they teach.

The co-authors begin by reviewing, from their earlier book Realization, 14 parameters for successful district reform. They include:

• Shared beliefs that each student can achieve high standards and that each teacher can teach to
high standards;
• Daily, sustained focus on literacy instruction;
• Principal leadership;
• Early and ongoing intervention;
• Collaborative inquiry; and
• Cross-curricular connections.

In Chapter 2, Sharratt and Fullan report on their 2011 action research. They asked five hundred or so educators working in Canada, the U. S., and the United Kingdom 3 questions:

1. Why do we put FACES on the data?
2. How do we put FACES on the data?
3. What are the top 3 leadership skills needed to put FACES on the data?

For Question 1, nearly half of the respondents’ answers were focused on the personal, emotional element. The largest number of responses to Question 2 was centred on assessment for and as learning, to determine the next steps in learning. With respect to Question 3, the respondents indicated that the top leadership skills are know-ability (knowledge of best practices and structures), mobilize-ability (being visible and getting people moving in the same direction), and sustain-ability (building and sustaining strong relationships). Most importantly, an effective leader participates as a learner.

An effective analogy is made between the important work teachers do in knowing and growing each child and the work of a sculptor who chips away at the marble to reveal the “lovely apparition” (sculpture) inside. Teachers chip away at the marble of system and school data of today to determine how it can best inform instruction tomorrow.

In the chapter on assessment, practices such as the following are recommended:

- Co-plan using student diagnostic data
- Make learning goals and (co-constructed) success criteria visible;
- Use on-going formative assessment and reflect on mid-course corrections;
- Provide oral and written descriptive feedback;
- Use peer and self-assessment; and
- Create data walls.

The rationale offered on confidential data walls which track all students’ assessments is particularly good: “Once all students are placed in their levels on the data wall, and the overlaps of plummeting, staying still, and soaring students are noted, teachers stop saying I because it becomes a we challenge – teachers own all the FACES.” (79)

In their chapter on instruction, the co-authors recommend a 3-tiered strategy of instructional intensification:

1. Good first teaching practices;
2. A case management approach for students who struggle, whereby a meeting is held involving
a number of school staff, including the principal, and the student’s work is examined and
supports are recommended;
3. Further intervention steps, such as a Reading Recovery program, when students still fail to
meet with success.

The good teaching practices the authors recommend include the gradual-release-of- responsibility approach to reading and writing, differentiated instruction, cross curricular literacy connections, and rich authentic tasks that involve higher-order thinking, and student inquiry. With respect to the last practice, they maintain that “skill in higher-order, critical thinking is the new basic for 21st-century (teaching) – the additional foundational literacy skill that accompanies the ability to read, write, speak, listen, view, and represent.” (112) The co-authors also introduce a very useful term – instructional intelligence, which they argue occurs when teachers combine high-yield instructional strategies that consider every learner’s needs.

In Chapter 5: Leadership – Individualizing For Improvement, the point is made that a principal should participate with teachers as a co-learner and co-leader, being the knowledgeable other who knows how to use data to improve instruction in every classroom in the school. A principal should conduct both data talks and classroom learning walks to monitor how each teacher is using data to move students forward. A principal possesses mobilize-ability when he/she “walks a fine line between push and pull” with teachers, and when he/she de-privatizes practice, “making teaching and learning transparent to all and debatable by all.” (169) The authors recommend an annual learning fair as a “live report” on evidence of student achievement. As for sustain-ability, the principal possesses it when he/she uses distributed leadership and empowers “second change agents” ( ie. a literacy coach) in the school.

Putting Faces on the Data concludes with the question Who “owns” the FACES? If one has read the book carefully, the answer is self-evident – all stakeholders in a child’s education!
Putting FACES on the Data is an ambitious book that covers a lot of ground with respect to student achievement and the use of data. In many ways, the book reads like a blueprint for principals and school district leaders for student success. The case studies and Narratives from the Field spread throughout the book add concrete examples of how many schools and districts have met with success by putting faces on the data.

[Shani Hartley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like the ideas but it should have been about half as long.

[Kathy Dyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

From a design standpoint, this book is intriguing. Color and layout seem unique and the use of color classroom pictures is engaging. This book contains in-depth case studies with data collected over time.

[Pam Horton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great thinking around actually using DATA not just collecting it. I got the idea to use our kids' year book pics to create a data wall on the Smartboard.