The recent press for high-stakes accountability has challenged school leaders to use data to guide the practices of teaching and learning. This article considers how local school leaders build data-driven instructional systems to systematically improve student learning. Such systems are presented as a framework involving data acquisition, data reflection, program alignment and integration, program design, formative feedback, and test preparation. The article reviews data collected in a yearlong study of four schools to describe how leaders structure opportunities to engage in data-driven decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelmannC., & ElmoreR. F. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
ArgyrisC., & SchönD. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
BernhardtV. L. (2003). Data analysis for continuous schoolwide improvement (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
5.
BlinkR. J. (2005). How do K–12 school districts build data-driven systems and utilize those systems to enhance student achievement? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
6.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., KerbowD., RollowS., & EastonJ. Q. (1998). Catalyzing basic organizational change at the building level. In Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change (pp. 93–129). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
BurchP. E., & SpillaneJ. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519–535.
9.
CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S. (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing.New York: RoutledgeFarmer.
10.
ChrispeelsJ. H., BrownJ. H., & CastilloS. (2000). School leadership teams: Factors that influence their development and effectiveness. Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, 4, 39–73.
11.
DennettD. C. (1990). The interpretation of texts, people, and other artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(Suppl.), 177–194.
12.
DesimoneL. M., PorterA. C., GaretM. S., YoonK. S., & BirmanB. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.
13.
EarlL., & KatzS. (2002). Leading schools in a data-rich world. In LeithwoodK., & HallingerP. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 1003–1022). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
14.
FeldmanJ., & TungR. (2001). Using data-based inquiry and decision making to improve instruction. ERS Spectrum, 19(3), 10–19.
15.
FountasJ., & PinnellG. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
FriedkinN. E., & SlaterM. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 139–157.
17.
GeeJ. P. (1999). Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences Report on Reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(3), 355–374.
18.
GlasserB. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis.Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
19.
GoddardR., SweetlandS., & HoyW. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683–702.
20.
GoodsonI. F. (1993). School subjects and curriculum, change (3rd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
21.
HalversonR. (2002). Representing phronesis: Supporting instructional leadership practice in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University. Available from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3050529
22.
HalversonR. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 11(37). Retrieved September 7, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n37/
23.
HalversonR. (2004). Accessing, documenting, and communicating the phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 90–122.
24.
HanushekE., & RaymondM. (2002). Sorting out accountability systems. In EversW. M., & WahlbergH. J. (Eds.), School accountability (pp. 75–104). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press.
25.
HerszenhornD. M., & SaulnyS. (2005, June 12). What lifted fifth-grade scores? Schools say lots of hard work. New York Times, p. 1.
26.
HolcombE. (1999). Getting excited about data: How to combine people, passion, and proof.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
27.
HoyW., HannumJ., & Tschannen-MoranM. (1998). Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 1–22.
28.
IngramD., LouisK. S., & SchroederR. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258–1287.
29.
JohnsonR. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in our schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
30.
KruseS. D., & LouisK. S. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing the school-based professional community In LouisK. S., and KruseS. D. (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23–42). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
31.
LoveN. (2002). Using data/getting results: A practical guide for school improvement in mathematics and science.Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
32.
MasonS. (2002, April). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
33.
MurnaneR. J., SharkeyN. S., & BoudettK. P. (2005). Using student assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 269–280.
34.
NelsonB. S., & SassiA. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high-quality learning.New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
NewmannF. M., SmithB., AllensworthE., & BrykA. S. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/pdfs/p0d02.pdf
36.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
37.
NormanD. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
38.
SargentJ. (2003). Data retreat participant's guide (2nd ed.). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
39.
SchmokerM. (2004, February). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424–432. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://pdkintl.org/kappan/k0402sch.htm
40.
SchugM. C., TarverS. G., & WesternR. D. (2001). Direct instruction and the teaching of early reading: Wisconsin's teacher-led insurgency. Wisconsin Policy Institute Report, 14. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume14/Vol14no2.pdf
41.
SengeP. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday
42.
SengeP., Cambron-McCabeN., LucasT., SmithB., DuttonJ., & KleinerA. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education.New York: Doubleday/Currency.
43.
SharkeyN. S., & MurnaneR. J. (2006). Tough choices in designing a formative assessment system. American Journal of Education, 112, 572–588.
44.
SimonH. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
SiskinL. S. (2003). Outside the core: Accountability in tested and untested subjects. In CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S., The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 87–98). New York: RoutledgeFarmer.
46.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
47.
TeddlieC., & ReynoldsD. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research.London: Falmer.
48.
ThornC. A. (2001, November 19). Knowledge management for educational information systems: What is the state of the field?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(47). Retrieved September 21, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n47/
49.
WaltonM. (1986). The Deming management system.New York: Perigee Books.
50.
WatsonJ. G. (2005). Towards designing effective feedback processes for public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
51.
WaymanJ. (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.
52.
WeickK. E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(10), 673–676.
53.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.London: Sage.
