Uses and Mis-Uses of Data: No Substitute for the Tough Work of Governing

We are staunch advocates of schools using data to inform decision-making, whether in strategic planning, school evaluation, leadership assessment, or myriad other places where one must cut through the anecdotes that abound around schools to gauge what is really going on. In earlier posts, we wrote about the pitfalls that come from "governance by anecdote," and suggested that the boardroom in particular be a "data-rich" environment. Anecdotes, after all, likely involve a particular student or family and are therefore charged with all sorts of emotions.We still believe that data elevates the governance dialog, but there is one place where boards must let the emotionality back in: when it comes to tough decisions about sacred people, places, and programs. The Spockian promise of data-driven decision making is in part because it strips away emotion leaving one to make the best, rational decision.Sometimes, though, the numbers can only point to a piece of difficult emotional work, such as retiring the founder who refuses to leave, closing a program precious to alumni but irrelevant to today's students, or tearing down a dilapidated but cherished building. In each of these situations, the board and its leadership must do what is difficult and not "kick the can down the road," something that is all too common in schools.