When Data-Driven Decision Making Becomes Data-Driven Test Taking: A Case Study of a Midwestern High School

Abstract

This case study examines how district administrators and high school mathematics and science teachers use data in instructional decision making and what challenges they face in the current accountability context. Findings reveal unique aspects of data use directly related to a high school setting within the context of test-based accountability and illustrate how overlapping systems (state and federal policy, subject area knowledge, district norms, etc.) influence data practices. We conclude with implications for practice and policy around ways to use data to inform instruction beyond passing state assessments.

Keywords

accountability assessment content knowledge educational policy high schools organizational behavior testing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Apple

M. W.

(2004). Schooling, markets, and an audit culture. Educational Policy, 18, 614-621.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2015). Comparison of the No Child Left Behind Act to the Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/ESEA_NCLB_ComparisonChart_2015.pdf

Beaver

J. K.

Weinbaum

E. H.

(2015). State test data and school improvement efforts. Educational Policy, 29, 478-503.

Berliner

(2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-302.

Blanc

Christman

J. B.

Liu

Mitchell

Travers

Bulkley

K. E.

(2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 205-225.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

(1994). Ecological models of human development. In Husen

Postlethwaite

T. N.

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 37-43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Christman

Neild

Bulkley

Blanc

Liu

Mitchell

. . . Travers

(2009). Making the most of interim assessment data: Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

Coburn

C. E.

Talbert

J. E.

(2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469-495.

10.

Coburn

C. E.

Turner

E. O.

(2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 9, 173-206. doi:10.1080/15366367.2011.626729

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Datnow

Park

Kennedy-Lewis

(2012). High school teachers’ use of data to inform instruction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 247-265.

13.

DiMaggio

P. J.

Powell

W. W.

(1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In DiMaggio

P. J.

Powell

W. W.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Evans

A. E.

(2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 159-188. doi:10.1177/0013161x06294575

15.

Farrell

C. C.

Marsh

J. A.

(2016). Metrics matter how properties and perceptions of data shape teachers’ instructional responses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 423-426.

16.

Fitchett

P. G.

Heafner

T. L.

(2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38, 114-130.

17.

Francis

Archer

Hodgen

Pepper

Taylor

Travers

M. C.

(2017). Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’in England: A discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), 1-17.

18.

Fullen

(1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In Anson

R. J.

(Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education (pp. 7-24). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

19.

Grossman

P. L.

Stodolsky

S. S.

(1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-23.

20.

Halverson

Grigg

Prichett

Thomas

(2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 159-194.

21.

Hamilton

Halverson

Jackson

S. S.

Mandinach

Supovitz

J. A.

Wayman

J. C.

. . . Steele

J. L.

(2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/279

22.

Hanushek

E. A.

Wößmann

(2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63-C76.

23.

Hootstein

(1998, November). Differentiation of instructional methodologies in subject-based curricula at the secondary level (Research brief no. 38). Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

24.

Ingram

Louis

K. S.

Schroeder

R. G.

(2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258-1287.

25.

Jacobs

Gregory

Hoppey

Yendol-Hoppey

(2009). Data literacy: Understanding teachers’ data use in a context of accountability and response to intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 31, 41-55.

26.

Jennings

J. L.

Bearak

J. M.

(2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43, 381-389.

27.

Key takeaways: State ESSA plans. (2017). Education Week, 36(28). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/key-takeaways-state-essa-plans.html

28.

Kitchen

Ridder

S. A.

Bolz

(2016). The legacy continues: “The test” and denying access to a challenging mathematics education for historically marginalized students. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 7, 17-26.

29.

Kittle

(2006). It’s not the high school teachers’ fault: An alternative to the blame game. Sullivan and Tinberg, 134-145.

30.

Little

J. W.

(2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 913-945.

31.

Mandinach

E. B.

(2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 71-85.

32.

Marsh

J. A.

Bertrand

Huguet

(2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-40.

33.

McEathron

Beuhring

(2011). Postsecondary education for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A critical review of the state of knowledge and a taxonomy to guide future research (Policy Research Brief, Vol. 21, No. 1). Retrieved from https://ici.umn.edu/products/prb/211/211.pdf

34.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

35.

Milner

A. R.

Sondergeld

T. A.

Demir

Johnson

C. C.

Czerniak

C. M.

(2012). Elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: An examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 111-132.

36.

National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

37.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

38.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Available from http://www.nextgenscience.org/

39.

Nieto

(2003). Equity and opportunity: Profoundly multi- cultural questions. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 6-10.

40.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

41.

Oakes

Lipton

(2007). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

42.

Reeves

D. B.

(2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

43.

Roegman

(2017). How contexts matter: A framework for understanding the role of contexts in equity-focused educational leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 27(1), 6-30.

44.

Roegman

Perkins-Williams

Maeda

Greenan

(2018). Developing data leadership: Contextual influences on administrators’ data use. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(4) 348–374.

45.

Saunders

W. M.

Goldenberg

C. N.

Gallimore

(2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1006-1033. doi:10.3102/0002831209333185

46.

Senge

P. M.

(1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1, 46-51.

47.

Siskin

L. S.

(1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 134-160.

48.

Smith

J. M.

Kovacs

P. E.

(2011). The impact of standards-based reform on teachers: The case of “No Child Left Behind.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 201-225.

49.

Standards in Your State. (2018). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/

50.

Talbert

J. E.

(2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

(Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 555-571). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

51.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

52.

Young

V. M.

(2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521-548.