Analyzing mathematics and reading achievement outcomes from a district-level random assignment study fielded in over 500 schools within 59 school districts and seven states, the authors estimate the 1-year impacts of a data-driven reform initiative implemented by the Johns Hopkins Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE). CDDRE consultants work with districts to implement quarterly student benchmark assessments and provide district and school leaders with extensive training on interpreting and using the data to guide reform. Relative to a control condition, in which districts operated as usual without CDDRE services, the data-driven reform initiative caused statistically significant districtwide improvements in student mathematics achievement. The CDDRE intervention also had a positive effect on reading achievement, but the estimates fell short of conventional levels of statistical significance.
Bernhardt V. L.Using data to improve student learning in elementary schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education; 2003:
2.
Black P.,Wiliam D..Assessment and classroom learning.Assessment in Education. 1998;5:7-74
3.
Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches. Bloom H. S., ed. New York: Russell Sage; 2005:
4.
Booher-Jennings J..Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system.American Educational Research Journal. 2005;42:231-268
5.
Christman J.,Neild R.,Bulkley K.,Blanc S.,Liu R.,Mitchell C.,Travers E.Making the most of interim assessment data: Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action; 2009:
6.
Clune W. H.,White P. A.Policy effectiveness of interim assessments in Providence public schools. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research; 2008:
7.
Conrad W. H.,Eller B...
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2003Chicago; 2003. .
8.
Crocco M. S.,Costigan A. T..The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out.Urban Education. 2007;42:512-535
9.
Crooks T. J..The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students.Review of Educational Research. 1988;58:438-481
10.
Datnow A.,Park V.,Wohlstetter P.Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: Center for Educational Governance, University of Southern California; 2007:
11.
Dembosky J. W.,Pane J. F.,Barney H.,Christina R.Data-driven decision making in southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2005:
12.
Diamond J. B.,Cooper K..The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago.Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. 2007;106:241-263
13.
Diamond J. B.,Spillane J. P..High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?.Teachers College Record. 2004;106:1140-1171
14.
Goertz M. E.,Olah L. N.,Riggan M.From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education; 2009:
15.
Hausknecht J. P.,Halpert J. A.,Di Paolo N. T.,Moriarty Gerrard M. O..Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability.Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92:373-385
16.
Hedges L. V.The handbook of research synthesis. 2009). Effect sizes in nested designs. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 337–355). New York: Russell Sage.Cooper H.Hedges L. V.Valentine J. C., ed. New York: Russell Sage; 2009:337-355.
17.
Heilig J. V.,Darling-Hammond L..Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008;30:75-110
18.
Henderson S.,Petrosino A.,Guckenburg S.,Hamilton S.Measuring how benchmark assessments affect student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands; 2007:
19.
Herman R.,Dawson P.,Dee T.,Greene J.,Maynard R.,Redding S.,Darwin M.Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide. Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2008:
20.
Kennedy E.Raising test scores for all students: An administrator’s guide to improving standardized test performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; 2003:
21.
Kulik J. A.,Kulik C. C.,Bangert R. L..Effects of practice on aptitude and achievement test scores.American Educational Research Journal. 1984;21:435-447
22.
Marsh J. A.,Pane J. F.,Hamilton S.Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2006:
23.
Mason S.Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research; 2002:
24.
May H.,Robinson M. A.A randomized evaluation of Ohio’s Personalized Assessment Reporting System (PARS). Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education; 2007:
25.
May H.,Perez-Johnson I.,Haimson J.,Sattar S.,Gleason P.Using state tests in education experiments: A discussion of the issues. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2009:
26.
Natriello G..The impact of evaluation processes on students.Educational Psychologist. 1987;22:155-175
27.
Ogawa R. T.,Sandholtz J. H.,Martinez-Flores M.,Scribner S. P..The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district’s standards-based curriculum.American Educational Research Journal. 2003;40:147-170
28.
Perie M.,Marion S.,Gong B..Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2009;28:5-13
29.
Petrides L.,Nodine T.Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven practices in urban school districts. San Francisco, CA: Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education and New Schools Venture Fund; 2005:
30.
Puma M. J.,Olsen R. B.,Bell S. H.,Price C.What to do when data are missing in group randomized controlled trials. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2009:
31.
Quint J.,Sepanik S.,Smith J.Using student data to improve teaching and learning: Findings from an evaluation of the Formative Assessments of Students Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) program in Boston elementary schools. New York: MDRC; 2008:
32.
Raudenbush S. W..Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials.Psychological Methods. 1997;2:173-185
33.
Raudenbush S. W.,Martinez A.,Spybrook J..Strategies for improving precision in group-randomized experiments.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2007;29:5-29
34.
Schmoker M..First things first: Demystifying data analysis.Educational Leadership. 2003;60:22-24
35.
Schochet P. Z..Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2008;33:62-87
36.
Slavin R. E.,Holmes G.,Madden N. A.,Chamberlain A.,Cheung A.,Borman G. D.Effects of a data-driven district-level reform model. Baltimore, MD: Center for Data-Driven Reform, Johns Hopkins University; 2010:
37.
Snipes J.,Doolittle F.,Herlihy C.Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools; 2002:
38.
Stecher B.,Epstein S.,Hamilton L. S.,Marsh J. A.,Robyn A.,McCombs J. S.,. . . Naftel S.Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004–2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2008:
39.
Stecher B. M.,Hamilton L. S.Using test-score data in the classroom. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2006:
40.
Wright W. E.,Choi D..The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona.Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2006;14:1-75
