Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 239-259

  Wohlstetter, Priscilla ^a   Datnow, Amanda ^a   Park, Vicki ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Data driven decision making; Education reform; Principal agent theory; School improvement; Urban education

Indexed keywords

EID: 51749092816     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: 17445124     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09243450802246376     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.
2. Borja, R.R. (2006). District initiative. Education Week, 25(35), 24-41.
3. Brown, B.D. (1998). Principals, bureaucrats, and responsiveness in clean air enforcement. American Political Science Review, 82, 213-234.
4. Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the capital to the classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Colby, S., Smith, K., & Shelton, J. (2005). Expanding the supply of high quality public schools. San Francisco: The Bridgespan group.
6. Crommey, A. (2000). Using student assessment data: What can we learn from schools? Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
7. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high performing elementary school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary school students. Los Angeles: USC Center on Educational Governance. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.usc.edu/dept/ education/cegov/achieving_data.pdf
8. Davies, P., Coates, G., Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Mangan, J. (2005). When becoming a 50% school is success enough: A principal-agent analysis of subject leaders' target setting. School Leadership and Management, 25(5), 493-511.
9. Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
10. Doyle, D.P. (2003). Data-driven decision-making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying power? T.H.E. Journal, 30(10), 19-21.
11. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12. Ferris, F.M. (1992). School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 333-346.
13. Ferris, J., & Winkler, D. (1991). Agency theory and decentralization. In R. Prud'homme (Ed.), Public finance with several layers of government (pp. 155-166). The Hague: Foundation Journal.
14. Hentschke, G.C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17-19.
15. Ingram, D., Louis, K.S., & Schroeder, R.G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258-1287.
16. Jacobson, L. (2007). Districts make strides with common vision. Education Week, 26(21), 28-30.
17. Johnson, J.H. (1999). Educators as researchers. Schools in the Middle, 9(1), 38-41.
18. Johnson, J.H. (2000). Data-driven school improvement. Journal of School Improvement, 1(1), 16-19.
19. Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-7. 9-10, 12, 14-15.
20. Marsh, J., Kerr, K.A., Ikemoto, G.S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., et al. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
21. Mason, S. (2002, April). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
22. McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and Learning, 22(11), 18-33.
23. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
24. Moe, T. (2005). Political control and the power of the agent. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 22(1), 1-29.
25. Peterson, J.L. (2007). Learning facts: The brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 1, 36-42.
26. Petrides, L., & Nodine, T. (2005). Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven practices in urban school district. San Francisco: NewSchools Venture Fund.
27. Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
28. Slavin, R.E. (2003). A reader's guide to scientifically based research. Educational leadership, 60(5), 12-16.
29. Sutherland, S. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 277-293.
30. The Information Edge: Using data to accelerate achievement. (2006). Education Week, 25(35).
31. Waterman, R.W., & Meier, K.J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173-202.
32. Wohlstetter, P., Van Kirk, A.N., Robertson, P.J., & Mohrman, S.A. (1997). Organizing for successful school-based management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.