The use of data-based decision making (DBDM) in schools to drive educational improvement and success has been strongly promoted by educational experts and policymakers, yet very little is documented about the actual DBDM practices used in schools. This study examines DBDM practices in 25 middle schools through 80 standardized observations of data team meetings and through survey responses. DBDM practices in terms of structure, process, content, quality, and alignment between self-report and observation are described. Key findings include the following: (a) The average amount of time spent discussing an individual student was brief, less than 2 min; (b) on average, actionable decisions following discussions of behavior or reading issues were made 34% to 40% of the time; and (c) there was weak alignment on key topics between self-reported and observed DBDM practices. These findings underscore the need for additional studies of DBDM practices in school and of the impact of DBDM practices on important student outcomes.
BahrM. W.KovaleskiJ. F. (2006). The need for problem-solving teams: Introduction to the special issue. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 2–5.
2.
CroneD. A.HawkenL. S.HornerR. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
CroneD. A.Nelson-WalkerN. J.CohenJ.CoughlinC.SchwartzM. (2012). Revised data team tool for observation (DTTO 3.0) and manual. Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education, Center on Teaching and Learning.
4.
CroneD. A.SmithJ. L. M.CohenJ.KennedyP. C.CoughlinC. (2010). Middle School Intervention Project School Survey. Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education, Center on Teaching and Learning.
5.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
6.
FeldmanJ.TungR. (2001). Using data-based inquiry and decision making to improve instruction. Spectrum, 19(3), 10–19.
7.
FinnJ. D.OwingsJ. (2006). The adult lives of at-risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school. Statistical analysis report (No. NCES 2006-328). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
8.
FuchsL.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
9.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS.MandinachE.SupovitzJ.WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
10.
HarlowC. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
13.
KekahioW.BakerM. (2013). Five steps for structuring data-informed conversations and action in education (REL 2013–001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
14.
MandinachE. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 71–85.
15.
MandinachE. B.HoneyM.LightD.BrunnerC. (2008). A conceptual framework for data-driven decision making. In MandinachE. B.HoneyM. (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16.
MandinachE. B.JacksonS. S. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through data-driven decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and Division 15 of the American Psychological Association.
17.
MarcotteA. M.HintzeJ. M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 315–335.
18.
MarshJ. A.FarrellC. C.BertrandM. (2014). Trickle-down accountability: How middle school teachers engage students in data use. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904814531653
19.
MeansB.PadillaC.GallagherL. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#edtech
20.
NewtonJ. S.HornerR. H.ToddA. W.AlgozzineR. F.AlgozzineK. M. (2012). A pilot study of a problem-solving model for team decision making. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 25–49.
21.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301.
22.
Qualtrics. (2015). Qualtrics Survey Software (Version 61204) [Software]. Available from http://www.qualtrics.com
23.
SugaiG.SpragueJ.HornerR.WalkerH. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–101.
24.
WaymanJ. C.StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112, 549–571.
