This case is designed to highlight issues related to data inquiry in education, the role of leaders (specifically building-level administrators) in setting conditions for effective data conversations on teams, and the challenge of developing and deepening data use in a school over time. It was created based on interviews with a real elementary school in a district in the southwestern United States; however, all names of places and people are pseudonyms. The case challenges educators to consider how school leaders can create stronger connections between information about student learning and teachers’ instructional decisions.
BoudettK. P.CityE. A.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.). (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning (Revised and expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
2.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
CoburnC. E.TurnerE. O. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118, 99-111.
4.
CosnerS. (2012). Leading the ongoing development of collaborative data practices: Advancing a schema for diagnosis and intervention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 26-65. doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.577926
5.
CosnerS. (2014). Cultivating collaborative data practices as a school wide improvement strategy. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 691-724.
6.
GallimoreR.ErmelingB.SaundersW.GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 537-553. doi:10.1086/597001
7.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS.MandinachE.SupovitzJ.WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 20094067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/12
8.
HornI. S.LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 181-217.
9.
KazemiE.FrankeM. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203-235.
10.
LevineT. H.MarcusA. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389-398.
11.
LittleJ. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.
12.
LittleJ. W.GearhartM.CurryM.KafkaJ. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 184-192.
13.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
MandinachE. B.GummerE. S. (2016). Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher preparation and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
15.
MandinachE. B.JacksonS. S. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through data-driven decision making. Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.
16.
MeansB.ChenE.DeBargerA.PadillaC. (2011). Teachers’ ability to use data to inform instruction: Challenges and supports. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.
MurphyJ. (2009). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate, government, and nonprofit sectors. Educational Policy, 23, 796-830.
19.
NelsonT. H.DeuelA.SlavitD.KennedyA. (2010). Leading deep conversations in collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House, 83, 175-179.
20.
NelsonT. H.KennedyA.DeuelA.SlavitD. (2009). The influence of standards and high-stakes test-related documents on teachers’ collaborative inquiry. In SlavitD.NelsonT. H.KennedyA. (Eds.), Perspectives on supported collaborative teacher inquiry (pp. 72-98). New York City, NY: Routledge.
NelsonT. H.SlavitD.DeuelA. (2012). Two dimensions of an inquiry stance toward student learning data. Teachers College Record, 114(8), 1-42.
23.
SaundersW.GoldenbergC.GallimoreR. (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.
24.
ShererJ.SpillaneJ. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113, 611-657.
SupovitzJ. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104, 1591-1626.
27.
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.
28.
TalbertJ. E.MilevaL.ChenP.CorM. K.McLaughlinM. (2010). Developing school capacity for inquiry-based improvement: Progress, challenges, and resources. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching, Stanford University.
29.
TimperleyH. (2008). Evidence-informed conversations: Making a difference to student achievement. In EarlL. M.TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (Vol. 1, pp. 69-79). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
