Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making

School Leadership and Management

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 477-494

  Park, Vicki ^a   Datnow, Amanda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Data driven decision making; Data use; Distributed leadership; District and school convertions; Organizational improvement; School reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 71449103058     PISSN: 13632434     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13632430903162541     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Alwin, L. 2002. The will and the way of data use. School Administrator 59, no. 11: 11
2. Anderson, S. 2003. The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. Ontario: International Centre for Educational Change, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education
3. Armstrong, J., and K. Anthes. 2001. Identifying the factors, conditions, and policies that support schools use of data for decision making and school' improvement: Summary of findings. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States
4. Bennett, N., C. Wise, P. Woods, and J. Harvey. 2003. Distributed leadership. Oxford, UK: National College for School Leadership
5. Center on Education Policy. 2004. From the capital to the Classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author
6. Cromey, A. 2000. Using student assessment data: What can we learn from schools?. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
7. Datnow, A., V. Park, and P. Wohlstetter. 2007. Achieving with data: How high performance driven school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary school students. Report for New Schools Venture Fund
8. 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, no. 10: 19-21
9. Earl, L., and S. Katz. 2006. Leading schools in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
10. Elmore, R.F. 2000. Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute
11. Elmore, R.F. 2002. Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership 59, no. 8: 22-5
12. Firestone, W.A., and C. Riehl. 2005. A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press
13. Firestone, W.A., and D. Shipps. 2005. How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to improve student learning. In A new agenda for research in educational leadership, eds. W.A. Firestone and C. Riehl, 81-100. New York: Teachers College Press
14. Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a cultural of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
15. Gronn, P. 2000. Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration 28, no. 3: 317-38
16. Gronn, P. 2003. Leadership: who needs it? School Leadership and Management 23, no. 3: 267-90
17. Harris, A. 2007. Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education 10, no. 3: 1-11
18. Harris, A., K. Leithwood, C. Day, P. Sammons and D. Hopkins. 2007. Distributed leadership and organisational change: reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change 8, no. 4: 337-347
19. Hallinger, P., and R.H. Heck. 1996. Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly 32, no. 1: 27-31
20. Lafee, S. 2002. Data-driven districts. School Administrator 59, no. 11: 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15
21. Leithwood, K., and D. Jantzi. 2000. Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication. School Leadership and Management 20, no. 4: 415-34
22. Leithwood, K.A., and C. Riehl. 2005. What do we already know about educational leadership? In A new agenda for research in educational leadership, W.A. Riehl and C. Riehl (eds.), 12-27. New York: Teachers College Press
23. McIntire, T. 2002. The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and Learning 22, no. 11: 18-33
24. Murphy, J., and A. Datnow (eds) 2003. Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
25. Petrides, L., and T. Nodine. 2005. Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven practices in urban school district. San Francisco, CA: New Schools Venture Fund
26. Prestine, N.A., and B.S. Nelson. 2005. How can educational leaders support and promote teaching and learning? New conceptions of learning and leading in schools. In A new agenda for research in educational leadership, W.A. Riehl and C. Riehl (eds), 46-60. New York: Teachers College Press
27. Schunk, D.H. 2004. Learning theories: An educational perspective, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
28. Stein, M.K., and J. Spillane. 2005. What can researchers on educational leadership learn from research on teaching? Building a bridge. In A new agenda for research in educational leadership, W.A. Riehl and C. Riehl (eds.), 28-45. New York: Teachers College Press
29. Supovitz, J., and B.S. Taylor. 2003. The impacts of standards-based reform in Duval County, Florida 1999-2002. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education
30. Tognieri, W., and S. Anderson. 2003. Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance
31. Wohlstetter, P., A.N. Van Kirk, P.J. Robertson, and S.A. Mohrman. 1997. Organizing for successful school-based management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
32. Yin, R. 2003. Case study research, 3rd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications