Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels

Leadership and Policy in Schools

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 292-327

  Anderson, Stephen ^a   Leithwood, Kenneth ^a   Strauss, Tiiu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959359628     PISSN: 15700763     EISSN: 17445043     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15700761003731492     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anderson, S., & Rodway-Macri, J. (2009). District administrator perspectives on student learning in an era of standards and accountability: A collective frame analysis. Canadian Journal of Education 32(2), 192-221.
2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), (pp. 20-50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4. Boudett, K. P., & Steele, J. (Eds.) (2007). Data wise in action: Stories of schools using data to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
5. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
7. Cawelti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
8. Coburn, C., Touré, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record 111(4), 1115-1161.
9. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
10. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How highperforming school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.
11. Davis, S. (2004). The myth of the rational decision maker: A framework for applying and enhancing heuristic and intuitive decision making by school leaders. School Leadership, 14(6), 621-652.
12. Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the sources: Response differences among teachers, principals and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640-676.
13. Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds.) (2004). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
14. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data-rich world. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 8) (pp. 1003-1024). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts on "proximal" formative assessment of student learning. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 186-216). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
16. Firestone, W. A., & González, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in schools. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 132-154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17. Fredericksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving, Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 363-407.
18. Goddard, R., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multi-level analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.
19. Goldring, E. & Berends, M. (2009). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
20. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
21. Hawley, W., & Sykes, G. (2007). Continuous school improvement. In W. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 153-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
22. Heritage, M., & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement: Challenges and prospects. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 320-339). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
23. Herman, J., & Haertel, E. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. In J. Herman & E. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 1-34). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
24. Katz, S., Sutherland, S., & Earl, L. (2002). Developing an evaluation habit of mind. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 17(2), 103-119.
25. Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the "data-driven" mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 105-131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
26. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 74-104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
27. Koretz, D. (2005). Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 99-117). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28. Ladd, H. (1996). Holding schools accountable. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
29. Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2005). Assessing leadership effects on student learning: Selected challenges for research and program evaluation. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational leadership and reform (pp. 53-76). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
30. Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
31. Little, J. (2007). Teachers' accounts of classroom experience as a resource for professional learning and instructional decision making. In P. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 217-240). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
32. Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177-204.
33. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., Gordon, M., Strauss, T., Thomas, E., & Moore, S. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final Report to the Wallace Foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
34. Mandinach, E., & Honey, M. (2008). Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35. McDonnell, L. M. (2005). Assessment and accountability from the policy maker's perspective. In J. Herman & E. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 35-54). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
37. Mehrens, W. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Educational Policy Archives, 6(13), 27-48.
38. Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175-181.
40. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
41. Resnick, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Mehalik, M., Sherer, J. Z., & Halverson, E. (2007). A framework for effective management of school system performance. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 155-185). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
42. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
43. Spillane, J., Diamond, J., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zolmmers, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.
44. Starbuck, W. (1996). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. In M. Cohen & L. Sproul (Eds.), Organizational Learning (pp. 484-515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
46. Tweney, R. (1991). Informal reasoning in science. In J. Voss, D. Perkins & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based decisionmaking: Collaborative educator teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
48. Wheatley, M. J. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
49. Wilson, D. (2004). Assessment, accountability and the classroom: A community of judgment. In D. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 1-19). Chicago: IL: University of Chicago Press.
50. Yeh, S. (2006). Reforming federal testing policy to support teaching and learning. Educational Policy, 20(3), 495-524.
51. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52. Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.