Under the reauthorized Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states and districts retain greater discretion over the measures included in school quality report cards. Moreover, ESSA now requires states to expand their measurement efforts to address factors like school climate. This shift toward more comprehensive measures of school quality provides an opportunity for states and districts to think intentionally about a basic question: What specific information should schools collect and report to their communities?
Setting
This study took place in the community surrounding a small, highly diverse urban school district.
Population/Participants
Forty-five local residents representing a range of demographic backgrounds participated in a modified deliberative poll with an experimental treatment.
Intervention/Program/Practice
We randomly assigned participants into two conditions. In the first, participants accessed the state web portal, which houses all publicly available educational data about districts in the state. In the second condition, participants accessed a customized portal that contained a wider array of school performance information collected by the research team.
Research Design
This mixed-methods study used a modified deliberative polling format, in conjunction with a randomized controlled field trial.
Data Collection and Analysis
Participants in both conditions completed a battery of survey items that were analyzed through multiple regressions.
Findings/Results
When users of a more holistic and comprehensive data system evaluated unfamiliar schools, they not only valued the information more highly but also expressed more confidence in the quality of the schools.
Conclusions/Recommendations
We doubt that more comprehensive information will inevitably lead to higher ratings of school quality. However, it appears—both from prior research, from theory, and from this project—that deeper familiarity with a school often fosters more positive perceptions. This may be because those unfamiliar with particular schools rely on a limited range of data, which fail to adequately capture the full range of performance variables, particularly in the case of urban schools. We encourage future exploration of this topic, which may have implications for school choice, parental engagement, and accountability policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersenV. N., & HansenK. M. (2007). How deliberation makes better citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the euro. European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 531—556.
2.
ArrowK. J. (1969). The organization of economic activity: Issues pertinent to the choice of market versus nonmarket allocation. The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditure: The PPB System, 1, 59—73.
3.
BushawW. J., & CalderonV. J. (2015). The 47th annual PDK/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Bloomington, IN: PDK International.
Davis-KeanP. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294—304.
DowneyD. B., von HippelP. T., & HughesM. (2008). Are “failing” schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81(3), 242—270.
EgginsR. A., ReynoldsK. J., OakesP. J., & MavorK. I. (2007). Citizen participation in a deliberative poll: Factors predicting attitude change and political engagement. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 94—100.
10.
EisnerE. W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well?Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 367—372.
11.
EpsteinJ. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701—712.
12.
FiglioD., & KennyL. (2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9–10), 1069—1077.
13.
FiglioD. N., & LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In HanushekE. A., MachinS. J., & WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 383–421). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
14.
FishkinJ. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
FishkinJ. S., & LuskinR. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284—298.
16.
GoldringE., & RowleyK. J. (2006, April). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public-private decision about school choice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
17.
HallT. E., WilsonP., & NewmanJ. (2011). Evaluating the short-and long-term effects of a modified deliberative poll on Idahoans' attitudes and civic engagement related to energy options. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1).
18.
HarrisD. N., & LarsenM. F. (2015). What schools do families want (and why)? New Orleans families and their school choices before and after Katrina [Policy brief]. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
19.
HastingsJ. S., Van WeeldenR., & WeinsteinJ. M. (2007). Preferences, information, and parental choice behavior in public school choice. NBER Working Paper, 12995.
20.
HastingsJ. S., & WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4), 1373—1414.
21.
HenigJ. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
HolmeJ. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177—206.
24.
HolzerM., & ZhangM. (2004). Trust, performance, and the pressures for productivity in the public sector. In HolderM., & LeeS. H. (Eds.), The public productivity handbook (2nd ed., pp. 215—229). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
25.
JacobB. A., & LefgrenL. (2007). What do parents value in education? An empirical investigation of parents' revealed preferences for teachers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1603—1637.
26.
JacobsenR., SaultzA., & SnyderJ. W. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?Educational Policy, 27(2), 360—389.
27.
JacobsenR., & SaultzA. (2016). Will performance management restore citizens' faith in public education?Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 476—497.
28.
LyonsW. E., & LoweryD. (1986). The organization and political space and citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities: An integrative model. Journal of Politics, 48(2), 321—346.
29.
MandinachE. B., & MiskellR. C. (2017). Focus groups to support the development and utility of EdWise for parental stakeholders: Findings from the parental focus groups. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
30.
MansbridgeJ. (2010). Deliberative polling as the gold standard. The Good Society, 19(1), 55—62.
31.
MaxwellT. W., & ThomasA. R. (1991). School climate and school culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2), 72—82.
MintropH., & SundermanG. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353—364.
34.
Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup. (2015, September). The 47th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Bloomington, IN: PDK International.
35.
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education. (2016). Fifth annual PACE/USC Rossier Poll. Tulchin Research and Moore Information [Distributor]. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/polls
36.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J., & MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? (pp. 91—116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
RhodesJ. H. (2015). Learning citizenship? How state education reforms affect parents' political attitudes and behavior. Political Behavior, 37(1), 181—220.
38.
RichP. M., & JenningsJ. L. (2015). Choice, information, and constrained options: School transfers in a stratified educational system. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1069—1098.
39.
RoseL. C., & GallupA. M. (2002). The 34th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Bloomington, IN: PDK International.
40.
RothsteinR., & JacobsenR. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 264—272.
41.
RothsteinR., JacobsenR., & WilderT. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42.
RumbergerR. W., & PalardyG. J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 3—42.
43.
SchneiderJ. (2017). Beyond test scores: A better way to measure school quality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
SchneiderM., TeskeP., MarshallM., & RochC. (1998). Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 769—793.
45.
SchneiderM., TeskeP., RochC., & MarschallM. (1997). Networks to nowhere: Segregation and stratification in networks of information about schools. American Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 1201—1223.
46.
SimmonsJ. P., NelsonL. D., & SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359—1366.
47.
SimonsenB., & RobbinsM. D. (2003). Reasonableness, satisfaction, and willingness to pay property taxes. Urban Affairs Review, 38(6), 831—854.
48.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417—453.
49.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
WestM. (2014, October 23). Why do Americans rate their local public schools so favorably? The Brown Center Chalkboard Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
51.
WichowskyA., & MoynihanD. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 68, 908—920.
52.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224—228.
53.
FeuerM. J. (2008). Future directions for educational accountability: Notes for a political economy of measurement. The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability, 293—306
54.
McDonnellL. M. (2008). The politics of educational accountability: Can the clock be turned back?The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability, 47—68.
55.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
56.
OsborneD. E., & PlastrikP. (2000). The reinventor's fieldbook: Tools for transforming your government (p. 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57.
SpillaneJ. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113—141.
