Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this article, I describe how principals accessed teacher and student data on a centralized data warehouse (DWH) during an academic school year. I found that principals did not use the DWH very often during the year. When logged on, principals most often looked at reports on student achievement, teachers’ performance, or student demographics. Principals’ use also seemed to be influenced by the school calendar and the release of student and teacher data, along with personal and organizational characteristics.

Keywords

data systems data use leadership principals technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anagnostopoulos

Rutledge

S. A.

Jacobsen

(2013). The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education. Harvard Education Press.

(2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523

Bhatt

G. D.

(2001). Knowledge management in organizations: Examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419

Black

Wiliam

(2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119

Booher-Jennings

(2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231

Brunner

Fasca

Heinze

Honey

Light

Mardinach

Wexler

(2005). Linking data and learning: The grow network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 241-267. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1003_2

Bruno

J. E.

(2002). Teacher absenteeism in urban schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(32). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v10n32.2002

Cannata

Rubin

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Neumerski

C. M.

Drake

T. A.

Schuermann

(2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 180-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16681629

Chappuis

(2007). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-19.

10.

Compeau

Higgins

C. A.

Huff

(1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.2307/249749

11.

Copland

M. A.

(2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004375

12.

Cuban

(2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press.

13.

Czaja

S. J.

Charness

Fisk

A. D.

Hertzog

Nair

S. N.

Rogers

W. A.

Sharit

(2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333

14.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

15.

Demaray

M. K.

Elliott

S. N.

(2001). Perceived social support by children with characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 68-90. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.1.68.19156

16.

DeVita

M. C.

Colvin

R. L.

Darling-Hammond

Haycock

(2007). A bridge to school reform. Wallace Foundation.

17.

Diamond

J. B.

Cooper

(2007). The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 241-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00104.x

18.

Donaldson

M. L.

(2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 838-882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13485961

19.

Drake

T. A.

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Cannata

M. A.

Neumerski

Rubin

Schuermann

(2016). Development or dismissal? Exploring principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data. In Grissom

J. A.

Youngs

(Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 116-130). Teachers College Press.

20.

Earl

Katz

(2002). Leading schools in a data-rich world. In Leithwood

K. A.

Hallinger

(Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 1003-1022). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9_34

21.

Farrell

C. C.

(2014). Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement a comparison of school districts and charter management organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 438-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14539806

22.

Firestone

W. A.

Gonzalez

R. A.

(2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 132-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00100.x

23.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders’ use of research in decision-making. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 365-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900512

24.

Gamson

(2007). Historical perspectives on democratic decision making in education: Paradigms, paradoxes, and promises. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 15-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00096.x

25.

Gannon-Slater

La Londe

P. G.

Crenshaw

H. L.

Evans

M. E.

Greene

J. C.

Schwandt

T. A.

(2017). Advancing equity in accountability and organizational cultures of data use. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0108

26.

Gedik

Bellibas

M. S.

(2015). Examining schools’ distributed instructional leadership capacity: Comparison of elementary and secondary schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i6.1056

27.

Gefen

Straub

D. W.

(1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.2307/249720

28.

Goertz

M. E.

Oláh

L. N.

Riggan

(2009). Can interim assessments be used for instructional change? [Policy brief]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.12698/cpre.2009.rb51

29.

Goldring

Berends

(2008). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school. Corwin Press.

30.

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Rubin

Neumerski

C. M.

Cannata

Drake

T. A.

Schuermann

(2015). Make room value added principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575031

31.

Grissom

J. A.

Egalite

A. J.

Lindsay

C. A.

(2021). How principals affect students and schools. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf

32.

Grissom

J. A.

Loeb

Mitani

(2015). Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use and effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 773-793. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0117

33.

Grissom

J. A.

Rubin

Neumerski

C. M.

Cannata

Drake

T. A.

Goldring

Schuermann

(2017). Central office supports for data-driven talent management decisions: Evidence from the implementation of new systems for measuring teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17694164

34.

Gunter

(2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 94-108.

35.

Hackmann

D. G.

Malin

J. R.

Ahn

(2019). Data use within an education-centered cross-sector collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(2), 118-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0150

36.

Hallinger

Murphy

J. F.

(1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355. https://doi.org/10.1086/443853

37.

Halverson

Grigg

Prichett

Thomas

(2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700202

38.

Hargreaves

Goodson

(2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05277975

39.

Heilig

J. V.

Darling-Hammond

(2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689

40.

Ikemoto

G. S.

Marsh

J. A.

(2007). Cutting through the “data-driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision-making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00099.x

41.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499

42.

Konstantopoulos

Miller

S. R.

van der Ploeg

(2013). The impact of Indiana’s system of interim assessments on mathematics and reading achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713498930

43.

Leckie

G. J.

Pettigrew

K. E.

Sylvain

(1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193. https://doi.org/10.1086/602864

44.

Legris

Ingham

Collerette

(2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4

45.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347

46.

Leithwood

Seashore

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI?sequence=1

47.

Mandinach

E. B.

Gummer

Northwest

E. S.

(2012). Navigating the landscape of data literacy: It is complex. WestEd and Education Northwest. https://wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1370972047resource13042-3.pdf

48.

Mandinach

E. B.

Gummer

E. S.

(2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459803

49.

Marsh

J. A.

(2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48.

50.

Marsh

J. A.

Farrell

C. C.

(2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269-289.

51.

Marzano

R. J.

Waters

McNulty

B. A.

(2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

52.

Means

Padilla

Gallagher

(2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/use-of-education-data/use-of-education-data.pdf

53.

Modeste

M. E.

Kelley

C. J.

(2020). Examining distributed leadership practices by school grade configuration. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(2), 209-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1514057

54.

Moore

G. C.

Benbasat

(1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192

55.

Morris

M. G.

Venkatesh

Ackerman

P. L.

(2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. Engineering Management, 2(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2004.839967

56.

Murali

(2014). Diving into data analytics tools in K-12. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-10-06-diving-into-data-analytics-tools-in-k-12

57.

Murphy

Torre

(2014). Creating productive cultures in schools: For students, teachers, and parents. Corwin Press.

58.

Myran

Sutherland

(2018). Defining learning in educational leadership: Reframing the narrative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(4), 657-696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18809338

59.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

60.

Odden

A. R.

(2011). Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18809338

61.

Orlikowski

W. J.

(1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398

62.

Pak

Desimone

L. M.

(2019). Developing principals’ data-driven decision-making capacity: Lessons from one urban district. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(7), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719841337

63.

Richardson

J. W.

Sterrett

W. L.

(2018). District technology leadership then and now: A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769046

64.

Rothstein

(2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the achievement gap. Economic Policy Institute.

65.

Schildkamp

Kuiper

(2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.007

66.

Shaw

Wayman

J. C.

(2012). Third-year results from an efficacy study of the acuity data system. http://www.waymandatause.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Shaw-and-Wayman-Year-3-Acuity-report.pdf

67.

Stiggins

(2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700414

68.

Terosky

A. L.

(2013). From a managerial imperative to a learning imperative experiences of urban, public school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13488597

69.

Thompson

R. L.

Higgins

C. A.

Howell

J. M.

(1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443

70.

Tyler

J. H.

(2013). If you build it will they come? Teachers’ online use of student performance data. Education Finance and Policy, 8(2), 168-207. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00089

71.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

G. B.

Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

72.

Wayman

J. C.

(2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295-308.

73.

Wayman

J. C.

Cho

Shaw

(2009). First-year results from an efficacy study of the acuity data system. University of Texas at Austin.

74.

Wayman

J. C.

Midgley

Stringfield

(2006). Leadership for data-based decision-making: Collaborative educator teams. In Danzig

A. B.

Borman

K. M.

Jones

B. A.

Wright

W. F.

(Eds.), Learner centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 189-206). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315091945-9

75.

Wayman

J. C.

Shaw

Cho

(2011). Second-year results from an efficacy study of the acuity data system. University of Texas at Austin. http://www.waymandatause.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Wayman_Shaw_and_Cho_Year_2_Acuity_report.pdf

76.

Wayman

J. C.

Shaw

Cho

(2017). Longitudinal effects of teacher use of a computer data system on student achievement. AERA Open, 3(1), 1-18.

77.

Wayman

J. C.

Stringfield

Yakimowski

(2004, January). Software enabling school improvement through analysis of student data (Report No. 67). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489950.pdf

78.

Wohlstetter

Datnow

Park

(2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision- making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450802246376

79.

Young

McNamara

Brown

O’Hara

(2018). Adopting and adapting: School leaders in the age of data-informed decision making. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(2), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9278-4

“We Have All the Data in One Place”: Examining Principals’ Use of a Data Warehouse During an Academic School Year

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References