Computer data systems have become a lynchpin to supporting school data use. However, successfully implementing such systems is no easy task. In this case, readers explore the ways in which “technology problems” and “people problems” can be intertwined. The case follows Dr. Molly Winters as she encounters social and organizational challenges relating to district vision, tensions around data use, and tensions involving technology implementation. Her exploration of these issues spans both the school and district levels. Her goal is to analyze and provide recommendations regarding how to support data system use and school improvement throughout her district.
AndersonS.LeithwoodK.StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational considerations and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 292-327.
BurchP.HayesT. (2009). The role of private firms in data-based decision making. In KowalskiT. J.LasleyT. J. II (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 54-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
ChenE.HeritageM.LeeJ. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students’ learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10, 309-332.
5.
ChoV.WaymanJ. C. (2014). Districts’ efforts for data use and computer data systems: The role of sensemaking in system use and implementation. Teachers College Record, 116(2). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=17349
6.
ChoV.WaymanJ. C. (in press). Assumptions, strategies, and organization: Central office implementation of computer data systems. Journal of School Leadership, 25(6).
7.
CoburnC. E.HonigM. I.SteinM. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In BransfordJ. D.StipekD. J.VyeN. J.GomezL. M.LamD. (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67-87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
CorcoranT.FuhrmanS. H.BelcherC. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
9.
HamiltonL. S.HalversonR.JacksonS. S.MandinachE.SupovitzJ. A.WaymanJ. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (Practice Guide No. NCEE 2009-4067). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED506645
10.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN. (2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118, 199-222.
11.
LachatM. A.SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 333-349.
12.
LeonardiP. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35, 407-441.
13.
MarshJ. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-48.
14.
MeansB.PadillaC.DeBargerA.BakiaM. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
15.
OrlikowskiW. J.BarleyS. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?MIS Quarterly, 25, 145-165.
16.
PiersonP. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.
17.
PinchT. J.WeibeE. B. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399-441.
18.
SupovitzJ. A.KleinV. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
19.
TuckerB. (2010). Putting data into practice: Lessons from New York City. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
20.
WaymanJ. C.ChoV.RichardsM. P. (2010). Student data systems and their use for educational improvement. In PetersonP. L.BakerE.McGrawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 8, pp. 14-20). Oxford: Elsevier.
21.
WaymanJ. C.ChoV.ShawS. (2009). First-year results from an efficacy study of the Acuity data system. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
22.
WaymanJ. C.JimersonJ. B.ChoV. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the Data-Informed District. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 159–178.
23.
WaymanJ. C.StringfieldS.YakimowskiM. (2004). Software enabling school improvement through analysis of student data (Technical Report No. 67). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education for Students Placed At Risk.
24.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2014). Data-driven leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
MandinachE. B.JacksonS. S. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through data-driven decision making.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
