Charlie Coleman is principal at Quamichan Middle School in Duncan, BC, Canada. Charlie has 18 years of experience in education and has been a Professional Learning Communities at Work^TM Associate since 2006.

Teachers and principals in a number of schools and districts have asked, "How do you have the tough conversation about data without offending teachers?" and  "What do you do in response to discouraging data?"

Here is an illustration I have shared in several workshops:

It was the end of the first report card term at Quamichan Middle School and a week before our faculty meeting where we would discuss data and analyze results for the first time. We had spent the fall taking the initial steps to becoming a PLC. Because of these conversations, staff knew this was coming and were both excited and anxious about this new focus on "results, not intentions." As I consolidated the data into a manageable document, one particular class was a major cause for concern. The math class in question had an 85% failure rate! This stood out in stark contrast to the rest of the subjects and grades across the school. While we would not be sharing the data with teacher names attached, it would be quite easy for staff members to assume which class and teacher these results came from. I did not want this first delving into data to derail our PLC journey, so I took some proactive steps.

First, the teacher and I had a private conversation. I told her that while reviewing the Term 1 results, one of her classes really stood out as a cause for concern. Before she could feel attacked or defensive, I suggested that this must be a very tough class with a number of students who had obvious learning challenges. This set her at ease, and she was able to share with me a number of her concerns and challenges with this particular class. I apologized for not noticing the challenges sooner and asked her how I could help support her and these students. Together we brainstormed some possible solutions, and I promised to work toward some of them. She remembered that we would be sharing all our data at the next faculty meeting and was relieved to know that we would use the dialogue on data as a solution-seeking opportunity, not a finger-pointing exercise.

Following that conversation, we spoke to our learning assistance teacher about ways we might support this teacher and these students. The two teachers were encouraged to meet before the next faculty meeting to see if they could put an intervention plan in place. They worked on this in collaboration with our Student Support Team. By the time the entire faculty met to review the Term 1 results, there was a plan in place and the teacher felt comfortable sharing both the troubling results and the resulting support plan.

The intervention plan we put in place made a dramatic difference. That one class went from 85% failing at the end of Term 1 to 85% passing by the end of Term 2. This was cause for celebration! The process we followed also enhanced trust and collaboration. Staff now know that a focus on results does not mean punishing teachers. They also saw that from the results flows responsive intervention and improved student achievement.