The New York Times education article In Race for U.S. School Grants Is a Fear of Winning challenged Illinois this week to think about its capacity to support Race to the Top initiative funded programs after the life of the 4 year grant.

In our quest to achieve a positive change in student outcomes, school culture indicators give us another data point to consider in the complex and ever changing equation for student success. As critical as knowing the quality of a teacher in his/her classroom, or the number of students served by a particular curricular implementation, having data that shows whether a school is on the right track for developing its desired cultural environment empowers principals and school staffs to make informed decisions about resources and enables them to make mid-course corrections before the end of the school year. 

EdWeek’s brief profile on John Q. Easton, head of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), drives home the importance and renewed focus on relevance and usefulness in education research. Over the years, we have collected vast sums of education data about students, teachers, schools, districts, states, and countries.

In the national conversation about United States’ education system and student academic performance, the U.S.’s standing on standardizing tests in core subjects relative to other industrialized countries seems to be a core evidence point highlighting our struggles.  But as with most measurement efforts, key performance indicators often raise more questions than they answer.  This is a good thing.  These questions shouldn’t only give us pause when considering the meaning of the performance itself, but also provide an opportunity to reflect on our definition of success.

With the proposed Investing in Innovation (i3) rules release, we have an even deeper insight into how much Secretary Duncan values data. As proposed, the amount of possible grant funding that an applicant may be awarded is tied directly to the strength of evidence supporting their application. What struck us as particularly interesting in this approach is that many innovative programs may, by their very nature, be short of deep evidence.

Every so often, you speak to a colleague in your field who understands issues and solutions at a very clear and deep level. My colleague Rick Groves and I had a great conversation with Christopher Lohse of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) recently and we wanted to share some of what he is thinking about with respect to education data.  

The US Department of Education is uniquely focused on performance measurement as they consider education funding through the stimulus package. As we review the metrics that have been offered for comment for both the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant applications, we think it critical that the department tie the data requests to specific outcomes.

A recently released report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute does an excellent job summarizing the confusion and debate regarding graduation rates as well as thoroughly describing the current set of metrics. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether graduation rate is the right metric to indicate preparedness for post-high school success, it's imperative that there is clarity in the definiton of any metric used so widely. 

I have had the opportunity to recently engage with a number of staff from school district central offices and education foundations about the question in the title – who owns student outcomes? Unfortunately the answer I have often received is focused on why a particular individual, department, office or organization cannot, in fact, be held accountable for student outcomes.

During a recent Race to the Top guidelines reading marathon, I came across some of the clearest thinking I have seen about measuring teacher effectiveness. I have read countless articles and papers addressing why measuring teacher effectiveness is so difficult and how it could cause more harm than good. Yet, I have refused to believe most of these claims through shear experience. We have managed to determine what a successful doctor, lawyer, NFL quarterback, pilot, mechanic, psychologist, plumber, relief pitcher, alpaca farmer, and regional quick lube chain president look like and there is no reason we should not do the same for teachers.