Educational and community data systems are propagated as being neutral, but in reality, they perpetuate hierarchies, mute dissenting voices, and flatten meaning. These systems are often perceived by teachers, students, and community stakeholders as measuring them instead of listening to them. When information is considered more like dialogue as opposed to a top-down demand, stakeholders turn into co-authors by sharing narratives, interpreting findings, and adding to decisions that help to turn data into an actionable instrument. Some practice techniques, including narrative portfolios, youth co-analysis, and story circles, expose surface context, which is consistently missed by standardized metrics. Enhancing the reflectivity, transparency, and ethical involvement of institutions creates trustworthy, socially fair institutions that can be acted upon to inform decisions that best represent the lived experience of the communities they serve.
Send download link to:
