In the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Christian education, Gravissimum educationis, the Church prudently maintains that teachers should be “very carefully prepared so that both in secular and religious knowledge they are equipped with suitable qualifications and also with a pedagogical skill that is in keeping with the findings of the contemporary world” (Pope Paul VI, 1965a).  On first glance, this type of requirement seems bullet-proof.  Who would disagree that teachers should be knowledgeable in cultivating their pedagogical skills?  On second glance, however, the document raises an important question for discernment: What, in fact, are the valid “findings of the contemporary world” from which teachers should derive their knowledge?  

This problem is particularly prescient since the Code of Canon Law, which, in echoing several of the principles of Gravissimum, notes only that "the instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life” (Code of Canon Law, 1983). There is no canonical requirement for teachers to hone skills that are in keeping with the findings of the contemporary world.

And the plot thickens when we put the Council's optimistic outreach to the contemporary world in tension with the corresponding pessimistic or skeptical-critical assessment of the problematic "signs of the times."  In fact, the Second Vatican Council, already showed great concern for the dangers of unbridled dependence on technology. For example, the Council warns: 

For [man’s] intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude strain to reality itself as knowable…our era needs wisdom…Today's progress in science and technology can foster a certain exclusive emphasis on observable data, and an agnosticism about everything else. For the methods of investigation which these sciences use can be wrongly considered as the supreme rule of seeking the whole truth. By virtue of their methods these sciences cannot penetrate to the intimate notion of things. Indeed the danger is present that man, confiding too much in the discoveries of today, may think that he is sufficient unto himself and no longer seek the higher things (Pope Paul VI, 1965a). 

In sum, then, Catholic educators are encouraged to explore the "pedagogical findings of the contemporary world" with a prudent and critical eye so that what appears as scientific does not actually mask something distorted or even opposed to the Gospel.

Perhaps nowhere are the devastating effects of a naive embrace of the riches of the modern educational world more apparent in Catholic schools today than in the wholesale embrace of “data-driven decision making.”  In this essay, I will argue that the modern connotations of data-driven instruction and the subsequent requirements that have been placed specifically on teachers have had, at best, no significant benefit to student learning; rather, they have come at a great cost to teachers’ ability to do what is most essential in educating children.

Before examining the core problems inherent in Catholic educational abuse of these practices, it is important to make a few clarifications.  

• First, there is nothing inherently wrong with collecting data and attempting to use the analysis of this data in making prudent decisions (as long as the methods used are in accord with natural law).
• Second, there is also nothing wrong with teachers assessing the progress of their students and attempting to find ways that better assist each student on the path to full integral human formation.  Moreover, all teachers should do so on a frequent basis.
• Finally, in areas in which education properly understood is ordered to growth in objective and concrete actions or results, assessments which quantify – and mathematically analyze these quantities – can be used licitly as tools for pedagogical improvement.

That being said, even the most superficial overview of the nature of Catholic education will show that many, including the most important, goals of an authentic pedagogy are spiritual or life long; they rarely admit to immediate concrete verification. Thus, a school which hands over its entire educational project to data-driven instruction - as it is commonly understood in today’s educational practices - will risk destroying the very essence of the education it seeks to provide.  Even when a school puts a formation in faith and virtue at the heart of its mission, if it is somehow imparting the message to its teachers that all of their instruction should be “data-driven,” it runs the risk of guiding teachers away from focusing on the most important elements of the education to which the mission aims.  

So where does the problem actually lie?  What is it about this modern data-driven approach that seems to have gotten off the rails?  As a statistics teacher who has taught in several different educational settings,^[1]starting in 1998 (just as state-standards-based instruction was hitting the scene), I am concerned about a number of areas in which I have seen data misused in educational settings. In this essay, I will focus on the following four areas, which I see as the most problematic: (1) the abuse of statistical reporting by administration, (2) an over-emphasis on data that is easily reportable, (3)  the diminishing acceptance of data that lacks “reportability”, and (4) a diminishing value of the personal encounter between teacher and student in data collection.   Then, I will comment on why these concerns are so problematic in any educational setting, but especially in Catholic education.

Current Areas of Concern in Data Usage for Catholic Education

1. Abuse of statistical reporting by educational leaders

As the phrase “data-driven decision making” has become more and more prevalent in educational practices, leaders in education seem to feel pressured to link every policy and statement to their teachers to some statistical finding.   Because data and the statistics gleaned from data are taken as reports of truth in all sorts of settings in our day, these leaders seem to think that as long as some data/statistic is referenced, their policy or counsel is justified.  But this is not a healthy use of information; in fact, it seems to breed “disinformation.”

In the years since I started teaching, I have seen that statistics are quoted more and more frequently in order to justify this or that educational policy, but at the same time, it is more and more rare for a source of data to be attached to these reports, much less assessed qualitatively.  To make matters worse, these statistics are usually quoted as the justification for the theft of teachers’ time in requiring that they go through yet another training or in-service to “more effectively combat” the dire situation shown in the statistics, even though no evidence suggests they will actually lead to an improvement in the situation.

My own teaching contradicts these dangerous current trends.  The most important lessons that I want my statistic students to internalize before finishing their study of statistics with me are the following: 

• we live in a data age in which we are bombarded with statistics in all sorts of settings, on a nearly-daily basis, 
• these statistics are often reported as a truth about a given population, and therefore 
• we must critically evaluate such statistics and not accept as truth every statistic we hear.

My hope is that my students leave my class ready to ask questions about the sources from which these statistics are gleaned.  How was the sample selected?  How was the data obtained? Were the inferences made from the statistics valid given the methods that were used?  Recognizing that no data is ever gathered perfectly, we should always be ready to ask what the potential sources of bias may be and toward what direction these biases may tend.  Additionally, I expect my students to be careful about inappropriately applying statistical findings to individuals who were not part of the sample population.

But this is not how many schools are approaching an education in statistics; too often in educational settings, a slew of statistics are reported without any indication of the sources of these data.  In an in-service I attended recently, the presenter (a highly celebrated, long-time Catholic educator and administrator) made six statements about statistics in the first two minutes of his presentation that had no reference to sources.  In his opening remarks, he started statements with, “Here’s a poll I found,” and “I found this online,” without any citation.  On one hand, this is a powerful rhetorical move because statistics are taken as proof so readily in today’s world.  But, on the other hand, it models irresponsible reporting of data for the entire group of teachers attending this in-service.  When the main message of the in-service is that “data-driven decision making” is a core principle for developing instruction, this sort of irresponsible reporting and throwing around of unsourced statistics is troubling at best.  With pressure on leaders of Catholic schools to use data-driven approaches in all of its decision making, it is tempting – and, therefore, quite common - for these leaders to quote statistics as proof of a need for this or that policy, even if the source of the data that resulted in those statistics is questionable, unknown, or possibly nonexistent.  Leaders in Catholic education ought to model responsible uses of data and statistics, for teachers themselves must be responsible when encountering statistics that impact their students.  

It is important to note that the administrator described above soon transitioned from these opening remarks to a very touching and compelling true story about the impact that one teacher had on the learning and formation of one at-risk child.  This powerful story, to which most of us veteran teachers easily related, told of the need to get to know each student and gather all the data we can, including what sorts of challenges s/he is facing at home and fundamental needs that inhibit his/her development.  No standardized test score analysis would have helped in reaching this child, and, in fact, if standardized test score analysis had been required of that teacher from the story, it is likely that this process would have interfered with her reaching out to that child in need.  Or worse, if that child had been placed in front of a screen for much of his instructional time in order to obtain all the data possible about his levels of mastery, the relationship between teacher and students would have been much more difficult to cultivate.  I will speak more about these observations in the coming sections.

2. Modern emphasis on easily reportable data

Most teacher-training programs emphasize the importance of frequent assessments that take lots of different forms, allowing teachers to appropriately gather information that gives them a full picture of student learning and formation.   However, once teachers begin teaching they are often given the message that what is actually required is to spend their time collecting and analyzing data from standardized test scores or even data generated from online testing usually created by a third party source (like the regular reading level and math level testing that schools believe they must use).  However, these methods of data collection are far less able to assist teachers in accessing the data that they need to assess  student learning quickly, organically, and authentically; these ineffective methods, in fact, turn teachers’ attention away from the personal dimension of teaching that is most essential.

To get a feel for what kinds of messaging teachers are being given, consider a typical description of the importance of data-based decision making from a highly decorated educational technology program called Renaissance.  In explaining what data-driven instruction is and why it is important to potential schools and educators that use their products, they report:

Data-based or data-driven decision making is a system of procedures that teachers use to identify why a student is struggling…Through very specific procedures, educators can use data to identify the source of student learning needs, address those needs, and then determine whether their efforts are working. 

Data-based decision making starts with universal benchmark screening. This provides data on every student in the school, so teachers can examine it and compare it with other sources of information to identify the students who may need additional help.

They can then provide additional assistance to those students through various types of intervention (at Tier 2 or Tier 3), and they can conduct progress monitoring in order to see if the student is reaching the learning goals.

Some students may need assistance over a longer period of time, however. They may participate in multiple interventions over multiple grades because of various factors that are affecting their learning. 

Data-based decision making provides tools allowing teachers to do this in a seamless way. It means that support can be provided regularly and immediately, rather than waiting for students to fail (Brown and Adato, 2020).

There is a lot of common sense in this description, and at first glance, who could argue with its conclusions?  Instruction should always be guided by an assessment of student readiness and an analysis of student growth.  But what does this assessment and analysis look like, and how is progress monitored?   The Renaissance education technology program boasts on its website that “More than 2.8 billion real-world data points about student learning drive product development.”   But, what are these billions of real-world data points?  

As a teacher who was first trained in a public school, then taught in some private college-prep settings, and who now teaches at a Catholic school, I have attended many in-services on improving student learning in multiple states from various perspectives; I can attest that many (perhaps most?) schools and teachers hear this type of rhetoric and turn their attention to almost any source of quantifiable data they can obtain.  But, one must ask: Is anyone actually assessing the type and quality of data?  Are the instructional decisions that are made in light of this data helpful, and, if so, are they different from the decisions that a reasonable teacher would have made without the aid of the external sources of data?

The description that Renaissance gives of data-based decision making uses phrases and terms such as “very specific procedures,” “use data to identify the source of student learning needs,” “universal benchmark screening,” “data on every student in the school,” and “progress monitoring.”  All of these phrases seem to paint a picture of a reliance on quantifiable, easily reportable data.  And, in fact, a look at various products that this educational technology organization offers supports this conclusion.  One finds on their website all sorts of prefabricated assessments that will produce data about standards mastery, kindergarten readiness, academic assessments, reading and math assessments, and even social/emotional behavior assessments.  

These are the types of resources that teachers often feel pressured to use in order to gather data that can be detailed in a neat report about each student.   However, in all of my years of teaching, I have only had one colleague who 1) was clearly striving for excellence in her teaching, 2) never hesitated to put in the extra time that was needed outside of the teaching day, and 3) had been convinced of the need to generate mounds of data about her students. She thought she was doing the right thing by subjecting them to online resource after online resource to gather data.   She acted with the best of intentions in digging into any standardized test analysis about her students that she could obtain.  Again, in the name of excellent instruction, after seeing standardized test analysis about a group of particularly low-scoring students, she abruptly assigned these students to “lunch tutoring” (which meant a loss of outside activity for 6th and 7th graders who needed such time badly) during which the students were asked to do practice problems in the skills in which they had received low scores.   Though she did no follow-up analysis to determine what exactly was going wrong in those skills for those students, she sincerely thought she was exhibiting stellar data-based decision making.   The reality is that she was the teacher in whose class more students struggled than any other veteran teacher with whom I’ve worked, and I often had the sense that this was because she took to heart so much of the messaging she received from educational leaders. She did not understand that quantifiable data was only a small part of the picture of the students she taught.

3. Loss of an acceptance of essential non-quantifiable data

A natural consequence of the new emphasis on quantifiable data is that school administrators no longer appreciate the types of data collection that good teachers naturally will perform.  Good teachers have relied on data-driven decision making since good teachers have existed; they have always found ways to assess students’ abilities and levels of knowledge acquisition.  What is a Socratic Dialogue other than a teacher asking a question and then interpreting the data from the student’s response in a way that allows him/her to ask the right follow-up question? But, with the advent of modern statistical methods, this type of data gathering now seems inadequate since only nicely reported quantifiable data is acceptable.  Teachers are increasingly asked to turn their attention away from the types of data that are actually valuable.

There was a strong shift toward a reliance on quantifiable data in education by the beginning of the 21st century, and recent years have seen a new wave of whole-hearted, unrestrained acceptance of easily-reported data as the only adequate source of determining student development.  Certainly the COVID pandemic did not help in this respect, as the types of multi-faceted assessments that had previously naturally happened in the in-person teacher-student interactions could no longer take place. Student learning in the online venue was mediated through on-screen instruction which was often asynchronous; assessments became completely focused on outcomes.  With these shifts, the types of non-quantifiable data collection that good teachers have always used now seem inadequate and old-fashioned and perhaps not in keeping with the “pedagogical findings of the contemporary world.”

Good teachers naturally tend toward holistic data collection that comes from careful observations of students during work time, timely correction of daily assignments, and daily encounters with their students as people with lives outside of the classroom.  These types of data give teachers the best ways to assess the ongoing development of their students.  If teachers are encouraged to think about, record, and even talk about (with colleagues, students, and students’ families) all of the sources of data that teachers collect on a daily basis in their classrooms, their time will be best spent in developing their instruction to be as effective as possible.  When teachers are simply told to use data-driven decision making, though, they usually hear that it is quantifiable, outcome-based data that is needed, and they feel pressure to generate records of obtaining and analyzing this data.

Interestingly, when one searches on the Renaissance website for a further explanation about what data-driven decision making actually looks like in practice, here’s what the company has to say:

Suppose a math teacher gave a homework assignment to students last night covering a new concept she’d just taught (step 1). As she walks around the classroom and listens to the students the following morning, she realizes they struggled with the assignment and did not fully understand the new concept (step 2).

She recognizes that she needs to take action. She might do a quick reteaching session, give additional examples, and/or have the students try to solve the problem in a different way. Then she might call on students at random and ask them to explain what they didn’t understand before (step 3).

This is an example of using the full data-driven instruction cycle in perhaps 15 minutes, based on homework that was given the night before. Clearly, data-based decision making doesn’t have to be an elaborate, time-consuming process. It’s just the teacher gathering data and then responding appropriately to what her students need (Brown and Adato, 2020)

This is a great example of the type of data collection and data-driven decision making that ought to be encouraged in teachers on a regular basis: listen to students, recognize the need for clarification, find moments of readiness, and spot check for student comprehension.  But, this is rarely the messaging that teachers receive when they are told to practice data-driven decision making in their instruction.   The examples given in teacher trainings and in-services tend not to include this type of data collection from which quantitative analysis cannot be made.

The most essential types of data that teachers must collect as they assess and make decisions about their instruction are not available through standardized and online testing.  Perhaps a standardized test or an online test that I generate myself could efficiently tell me what types of skills my students have mastered and what skills are still in progress, but these types of tests would not allow me to quickly assess what the particular challenges were in their work, and they prevent me from communicating clearly and specifically what each student is doing well and what skills still need work in a timely way.  One important detail to note is that I am a math teacher.  If any subject lends itself to reporting quantifiable data through assessments, it is mathematics.  But, even in math, this type of data is inadequate for painting the full picture of student development.

If a person has been called by God to teach, then he/she must be encouraged to lean into his/her holistic approaches to gathering data about their students.   There are all kinds of data that are important for teachers to pay attention to, and many of them are not nicely quantifiable or conveniently reportable.  Catholic school leaders must hire teachers who can give evidence of their vocation to teach, they must give younger teachers opportunities to watch this holistic approach of data collection in action by effective veteran teachers, and then these leaders must trust the Holy Spirit to guide these teachers in determining all of the varied ways in which good teachers observe and collect important data about their students.  Good teachers will use this data in making the right decisions in their instruction as long as these teachers are not overburdened by bureaucratic requirements that take them away from these important tasks of data collection and following-up on what they observe.

4. Devaluation of personal encounter

As standards-based education has become more focused on student outcomes and quantifiable improvements, the personal dimension of teaching and the importance of relationship and discipleship has been all-but-forgotten largely because this essential element of effective teaching is hard to report.

In our digital age, there is a tendency to see people as data points and de-emphasize the importance of in-person encounters.  These tendencies are widely accepted as the way of the times, even when they are recognized as problematic.  Problems range from increased feelings of isolation to diminished abilities in communication to heightened levels of anxiety.   Nevertheless, as astonishing and disturbing as this reality is, even Catholic schools have handed their students over to on-screen instruction in huge numbers, somehow justifying the need for students (even as young as kindergarteners) to use screens in much of their instructional time.  The justification for screen time is often that it enhances the ability of teachers to gather data and, therefore, tailor or “personalize” their instruction much more efficiently.  Administrators and teachers flock to reading and math software, such as IXL, that give constant data about a student’s reading level and math skills competency; meanwhile, websites like Kahn Academy track mastery of all sorts of skills, and there are various web-based resources that are used to target delayed and struggling learners in order to manage targeted skill practice and competency.   These sound so helpful.  However, after experiencing years of colleagues turning to these online resources only to see no improvement in student achievement and a diminished ability in these students to demonstrate basic scholarly habits (such as showing a logical flow of work in a multi-step math problem), I am convinced of their relative uselessness and possible harm.

Though it flies in the face of Catholic sensibilities and even the teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic schools choose this path of on-screen instruction in huge numbers and in a variety of forms largely, I think, because of the pressure to prove that the education they provide is “data-driven” and appears technologically advanced.  However, Catholicism is a religion centered around the reality of the incarnation.   To be Catholic is to reverence the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and to acknowledge the power and grace that comes from being with Christ in His presence in the Blessed Sacrament, even consuming Him so that His life is actually and physically in us.   In contrast, one may not receive or participate in sacraments virtually; even the sacrament of reconciliation is required to be person to person.  Thus, there is a significant importance that the Church recognizes in the disciple’s personal encounter with Christ and, by extension, with the members of His Body, the Church.

No value of a collection of student data, no matter how great, justifies putting children in front of screens.  This is perhaps a very bold and controversial stance to take, but I am more and more convinced of its truth.^[2]

Good teachers are more capable of personalizing educational experiences for children than any software that can be imagined because each good teacher is a person.   A good teacher can collect all sorts of data, consciously and subconsciously, from his/her students that allow him/her to make decisions that will benefit the student’s formation because the teacher has the capacity to love each student and to will what is best for him or her.  While a strong case can be made for online apps and programs being able to gather and analyze more data about a student’s reading or math ability using various software, the cost of having the student read or do math on a screen is not outweighed by the value of gathering this data.  Good teachers are quite capable of making data-driven decision making without the quantifiable data that is generated by these on-screen programs, and, more importantly, teachers can provide important modeling and mentoring to these students that they will not get otherwise.

We are now in a position to ask why these areas of concern are so problematic in education, especially if it is an education that is centered on the teachings, model, and heart of Christ as Catholic education ought always to be.

Data Driven Off the Rails: Cost-benefit analysis of typical data-driven approaches

If teachers are required to spend their limited time pouring over analyses of standardized tests in order to make necessary adjustments to their teaching, there ought to be evidence that this use of teacher’s time does indeed accomplish the goal of improving student learning and formation.  While annual standardized tests are designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of student competency in various areas, one must be careful with the interpretation of this data and also how that interpretation is used.   Data generated by one class’s standardized test scores may reflect a weakness in certain content areas of a teacher’s instruction, or it may reflect a weakness in that class’s formation.   Also, focusing on an individual student’s test score analysis is probably only valid if seen as a pattern over several years; but then what use is it in tailoring that student’s instruction after this time has passed?  It is difficult to make an argument that teachers using annual standardized test scores and analysis to make year-to-year adjustments in their approach will benefit an actual student.  Obviously, making helpful adjustments one year will not benefit the class of students that have already passed onto the next grade.  So, it may be helpful for someone in an administrative position who can see the vertical development of various skills to put in some time analyzing data in order to give teachers instructional guidance based on overall patterns that can be seen over at least a few years; but, teacher turn-over is such that this type of opportunity for long-term analysis is rare.  For all of these reasons, it is hard to produce evidence that analyzing standardized test data actually benefits student learning.

In terms of cost, the price is high.  Much instruction time is lost to testing days.  Much time is spent analyzing the data that comes back from these tests.   Much planning time is used in restructuring the class in response to that analysis.  Time is a teacher’s most precious resource, and these uses of time take a teacher away from the essential task of gathering and responding to the more important data that he/she can glean through her own interactions and personally designed assessments in his/her own classroom.

With limited actual benefits and such a high cost, there seems to be no argument to support this practice of asking teachers to spend their time analyzing annual standardized test data.  Now, administrators do need some way of checking teacher’s effectiveness, and school systems do need some way of assessing schools’ levels of success, and unfortunately the data from standardized tests are hard to compete with in terms of being able to analyze overall patterns of teachers and schools using data from many students.  Therefore, I am not arguing for a complete cessation of standardized testing.  But, it seems to me that these test scores ought to fall into the hands of an administrator who can use administrative time to first do the analysis about whether the goals being tested are in line with the goals of the school and then determine whether adjustments need to be made in either curriculum or instruction, or both, to better meet these goals.^[3] 

In general, if teachers are required to emphasize the use of quantifiable data in their decision making, whether it comes from annual standardized tests or online resources, then this emphasis should give us evidence of significant improvement in student learning and formation.  So, of course the important question to ask is, “has student learning improved since embracing this type of data-driven instruction?”  The most comprehensive study^[4] I could find that attempted to answer this question was inconclusive.  This 2006 study performed by the RAND Corporation, after at least a decade of this modern movement of data-driven instruction, found that it was unclear whether student learning was indeed enhanced by the types of data-gathering that the schools had universally started turning toward.  

After much analysis of several different uses of data, “systematically gathered from large, representative samples of educators at the district, school, and classroom levels in a variety of contexts” (Marsh, Pane, Hamilton, 2006), this study was left with many questions that had not been answered about whether student learning was indeed improving.  The researchers concluded the study by stating that “answers to these questions are critical for evaluating the validity and effects of state accountability tests” (Marsh, Pane, Hamilton, 2006). In other words, this study did not find convincing evidence that the data from state standardized tests, for example, were necessarily helpful or even valid.

One major point that the study makes is that data-driven decision making is a three-step process in which, first, the data is gathered; second, the data is analyzed; and, third, action is taken based on the analysis.  The researchers involved in the study acknowledged that this is a very time-consuming process if it is done thoroughly and well, and they were not convinced that most schools were even engaging in this full process in many of the cases studied.  Perhaps a lack of thoroughness is why we have little to no evidence of significantly improved student learning under this approach, or perhaps we can conclude that this approach to data-driven decision making is simply not realistic. In student learning, timely feedback and adjustment is essential on the part of the teacher.  To ask teachers to engage in this type of data-driven decision making is to remove their ability to respond to the data in front of them in the moment.  

Regardless of whether this type of approach is not producing evidence of its efficacy because it is not being performed well or because it is not a reasonable approach, the fact is that there is indeed a lack of evidence that purely quantifiable data-driven decision making is leading to improved learning.   Despite a lack of evidence that this approach is actually improving student learning, districts and dioceses have amplified their efforts in this area.  This is the type of policy-making that economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell, who is famous for his “the emperor has no clothes” observations about all sorts of policies that we observe in our modern world, loves to highlight.   He speaks often of “the anointed,” the intellectuals who spout the party-line in any given social/political climate, observing that they have “shown an extraordinary ability to defy evidence” (Sowell, 2011). In the case of data-driven decision making, “the anointed” in educational leadership seem never to tire of exalting statistical reports that can be generated even if these leaders cannot point to the improvements to which the reports have led.   Sowell is also well-known for pointing out that time after time, in all sorts of contexts, over-taxation reduces productivity.  This is certainly the case for the requirements being placed on teachers for the collection of quantifiable data.  Of course the resource being taxed is a teacher’s time, and this taxation takes the form of time spent collecting data, time spent analyzing the data generated, time spent proving their appropriate adjustments made based on the analysis performed, and then time spent in trainings that seek to equip teachers with more and more data-gathering tools.  The time that teachers get to do the real work of teaching is constantly being threatened.

Data Driven Off the Rails: Data-driven approaches in light of Jesus Christ, the model teacher

Catholic schools should not feel pressure to follow the lead of public and secular schools in the modern approach to data-driven decision making.  Though I noted at the outset of this essay that the Church requires that teachers “should therefore be very carefully prepared so that both in secular and religious knowledge they are equipped with suitable qualifications and also with a pedagogical skill that is in keeping with the findings of the contemporary world,” (Pope Paul VI, 1965a), we also observed that the Church reminds us that man’s “intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude strain to reality itself as knowable” (Pope Paul VI, 1965b).  What reality must we, as Catholic educators, insist is knowable?  The first and most important answer to this question is: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   The most fundamental element of an authentic Catholic education is, of course, a regular encounter with Our Lord and Savior; this ought not only take the form of sacramental encounter (which is essential) and regular, developmentally appropriate, engagement with the truths of the Catholic Faith, but it also must include an encounter with Christ through an imaging of “Jesus the Teacher” to which we, as Catholic teachers, are called to strive.  That is, Catholic school teachers are called to look to and imitate Jesus as our model teacher.  

The Gospels present Jesus as teacher or rabbi.  His one-on-one lessons that lead this or that disciple to a new way of life, His “full class lectures” that illustrate His lessons with the perfect analogies and examples, and the simple witness of His life on earth all, therefore, model for us both a relationship with the people with whom He seeks to disciple as well as a prudent response to the data that His pupils present.  When He seeks to reach more people than He can have an in-person relationship with to teach them the ways of the Kingdom, He trains others to teach as He taught.  He does not hand over students to third-party data collection so that the best decisions can be made; He trains them in discipleship.  

To be sure, there are some biblical examples of quantitative data collection.   God gives us an example of this type of data-driven decision making, in fact, in the Book of Numbers, where a detailed census is taken.  But here the goal was not discipleship and teaching like it is with Christ - or like it is for a Catholic school teacher.  In Numbers, a quantitative account is needed in order to make prudent decisions about battle for a large number of people.  This is more akin to the work of an administrator who needs to make departmental, school-wide, or district-wide decisions about curriculum and instruction.  This type of broad data gathering is appropriate in limited ways for those responsible for making decisions about large numbers of students.  However, teachers whose goal is primarily to help students know, love, and serve God through an encounter with Christ and an immersion in the True, Good, and Beautiful must not be swayed away from this goal by the modern forms of data collection in their pursuit to ground all decisions in data.  All too often, this pursuit leads teachers away from the perennially reasonable ways in which good teachers have always made data-driven decisions, and the non-quantifiable but most essential elements of education are overlooked.   Administrators must do their work of administration, and they must support teachers in doing their work of teaching, which involves reasonable data gathering about the people in front of them each day: their students.  Focused data gathering that puts the emphasis on the personal encounter between teacher and student should be encouraged in order to improve student learning and formation.

References

Brown, R., & Adato, M. (2020, August 14). Data-driven decision making in education: Why it’s needed and how to use it. Renaissance. renaissance.com/2020/08/14/blog-data-driven-decision-making-in-education-why-its-needed-and-how-to-use-it/  

Code of Canon Law. (1983). The Holy See. www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.html

Graham, T.  (2020, April 27). Online Education is Not Fully Catholic Education. Homiletic and Pastoral Review. www.hprweb.com/2020/04/online-education-is-not-fully-catholic-education/

Guernsey, D. (2020, May 28). Distance Learning Makes the Heart Grow Fonder. CrisisMagazine. crisismagazine.com/opinion/distance-learning-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html

Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006) Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education. RAND. 

Pope Paul VI. (1965a). Declaration on Christian Education - Gravissimum Educationis. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html

Pope Paul VI. (1965b). Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World - Gaudium et Spes. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Sowell, T. (2011). The Thomas Sowell Reader. Basic Books.