Local education authorities and student learning: The effects of policies and practices

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 133-158

  Lee, Moosung ^a   Seashore Louis, Karen ^b   Anderson, Stephen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

data driven decision making; districts; leadership; networks; professional community

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859564425     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: 17445124     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2011.652125     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Anderson, S. E. 2006. The school districts' role in educational change. International Journal of Educational Reform, 15: 13-37.
2. Anderson, S., Leithwood, K. and Strauss, T. 2010. Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9: 292-327.
3. Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R. and Sebastian, J. 2010. Developing instructional leaders: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals' professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46: 241-279.
4. Bentler, P. M. 1990a. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246.
5. Bentler, P. M. 1990b. Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25: 163-172.
6. Bentler, P. M. and Chou, C. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16: 78-117.
7. Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. 1978. Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol VII: Implementing and sustaining innovation, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
8. Boudette, K. and Steele, J. 2007. Data wise in action: Stories of schools using data to improve teaching and learning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9. Brophy, J. 1986. Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41: 1069-1077.
10. Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E. and Louis, K. S. 1999. Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Education Administration Quarterly, 35: 751-781.
11. Bryk, A. S. and Schneider, B. 2002. Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement, New York: NY Russell Sage Foundation.
12. Cascadden, D. 1998. Principals and managers and leaders: A qualitative study of the perspectives of selected elementary school principals. Journal of School Leadership, 8: 137-170.
13. Cawelti, G. and Protheroe, N. 2001. High student achievement: How six school districts changed into high-performance systems, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
14. Cheng, Y. C. and Mok, M. M.C. 2008. What effective classroom? Towards a paradigm shift. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19: 365-385.
15. Chrispeels, J. H., Castillo, S. and Brown, J. 2000. School leadership teams: A process model of team development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11: 20-56.
16. Coburn, C. E. 2006. Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43: 343-379.
17. Coburn, C. E. and Talbert, J. E. 2006. Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112: 469-495.
18. Coburn, C. E., Touré, J. and Yamashita, M. 2009. Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111: 1115-1161.
19. Copland, M. A. 2003. Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25: 375-395.
20. Curran, P. J., West, S. G. and Finch, J. F. 1996. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1: 16-29.
21. Daly, A. J. and Finnigan, K. S. 2010. A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11: 111-138.
22. D'Amico, L. and Stein, M. K. 2002. Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104: 1313-1344.
23. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q.... and Kington, A. 2009. The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes (Research Report RR108), London, UK: Department of Children.
24. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Leithwood, K. and Kington, A. 2008. Research into the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Policy and research contexts. School Leadership & Management, 28: 5-25.
25. Earl, L. and Katz, S. 2006. Leading schools in a data-rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
26. Earl, L. and Katz, S. 2007. Leadership in networked learning communities: Defining the terrain. School Leadership & Management, 27: 239-258.
27. Edge, K. and Mylopoulos, M. 2008. Creating cross-school connections: LC networking in support of leadership and instructional development. School Leadership & Management, 28: 147-158.
28. Fan, X. and Sivo, S. A. 2007. Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 509-529.
29. Fenstermacher, G. and Richardson, V. 2005. On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107: 186-213.
30. Firestone, W. A. 2009. Accountability nudges districts into changes in culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 90: 670-676.
31. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
32. Harris, A. 2002. Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership & Management, 22: 15-26.
33. Heath Kaufman, J. and Stein, M. K. 2010. Teacher learning opportunities in a shifting policy environment for instruction. Educational Policy, 24: 563-601.
34. Heck, R. H. and Hallinger, P. 2009. Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46: 659-689.
35. Honig, M. I. and Coburn, C. E. 2008. Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22: 578-608.
36. Hord, S. and Sommers, W. 2008. Leadership and professional learning communities: Possibilities, practice and performance, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
37. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1-55.
38. Ikemoto, G. S. and Marsh, J. A. 2007. "Cutting through the "data-driven" mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 105-131. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
39. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S. and Schroeder, R. G. 2004. Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106: 1258-1287.
40. Jackson, D. and Temperley, J. 2007. "From professional learning communities to networked learning communities". In Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas, Edited by: Stoll, L. and Louis, K. 45-62. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41. King, M. B. and Newmann, F. M. 2001. Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15: 86-94.
42. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R. E. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41: 75-86.
43. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L. and Portin, B. S. 2010. Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems, Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
44. Kyriakides, L. 2008. Testing the validity of the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness: A step towards the development of a dynamic model of effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19: 429-446.
45. Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. 1995. Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68: 241-270.
46. Leech, D. and Fulton, C. 3008. Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the principal's leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district. Education, 128: 630-644.
47. Leithwood, K. 2008. Characteristics of high performing school districts. A review of empirical evidence, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
48. Leithwood, K. 2010. Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9: 245-291.
49. Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. 2000. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38: 112-129.
50. Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. 2008. Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44: 496-528.
51. Little, J. W. 1989. District policy choices and teacher's professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11: 165-179.
52. Little, R. J.A. and Rubin, D. B. 1989. The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods & Research, 18: 292-326.
53. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the questions, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 151-173.
54. Louis, K. S. 1989. "The role of the school district in school improvement". In Educational policy for effective schools, Edited by: Holmes, M., Leithwood, K. and Musella, D. 145-167. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
55. Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B. and Wahlstrom, K. 2010. How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21: 315-336.
56. Louis, K. S. and Freeman, C. 2006. "Teacher teaming and school reform". In Organizing for school change, Edited by: Louis, K. S. 175-194. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
57. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., Mascall, B. and... Moore, S. 2010. Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research to the Wallace Foundation, New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
58. Louis, K. S. and Marks, H. M. 1998. Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106: 532-575.
59. Louis, K. S., Thomas, E. and Anderson, S. E. 2010. How do states influence leadership in small districts?. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9: 328-366.
60. Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. and DiRanna, K. 2008. The data coach's guide to improving learning for all students: Unleashing the power of collaborative inquiry, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. and Sugawara, H. M. 1996. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1: 130-149.
62. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M. and Necowitz, L. B. 1992. Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 490-504.
63. Mangin, M. M. 2007. Facilitating elementary principals' support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43: 319-357.
64. Marks, H. M. and Louis, K. S. 1997. Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19: 245-275.
65. Marks, H. M., Louis, K. S. and Printy, S. M. 2002. "The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for pedagogy and student achievement". In Organizational learning and school improvement, Edited by: Leithwood, K. 239-266. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
66. Marks, H. M. and Printy, S. M. 2003. Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39: 370-397.
67. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R. and Grayson, D. 1998. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factory analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33: 181-220.
68. Massell, D. and Goertz, D. 2002. "District strategies for building instructional capacity". In School districts and instructional renewal, Edited by: Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. and McLaughlin, M. 43-60. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
69. McDonald, R. P. and Ho, M.-H.R. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7: 64-82.
70. Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. 1986. The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24: 212-235.
71. Muthén, B., Kaplan, D. and Hollis, M. 1987. On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52: 431-462.
72. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R. and Sullivan, J. J. 2003. Making sense of factor analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73. Resnick, L. and Glennen, T. 2002. "Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts". In School districts and instructional renewal, Edited by: Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, D. and McLaughlin, M. 160-172. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
74. Riley, K., Docking, J. and Rowles, D. 1999. Can local education authorities make a difference?: The perceptions of users and providers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 27: 29-44.
75. Rosenholtz, S. J. 1991. Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
76. Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R. and Altmaier, E. M. 1998. Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45: 18-29.
77. Schafer, J. L. and Olsen, M. K. 1998. Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33: 545-571.
78. Shrout, P. E. and Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.
79. Smylie, M. A. and Wenzel, S. A. 2003. The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Successes, failures, and lessons for the future, Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
80. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F. and Herlihy, C. 2002. Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement, New York, NY: MDRC.
81. Sobel, M. E. 1982. "Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models". In Sociological methodology, Edited by: Leinhart, S. 290-312. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
82. Spillane, J. P. 1998. State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35: 33-63.
83. Stein, M. K. and Coburn, C. E. 2008. Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114: 583-626.
84. Stein, M. K., Hubbard, L. and Touré, J. 2009. "Travel of district-wide approaches to instructional improvement: How can districts learn from one another?". In Second international handbook of educational change, Edited by: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D. 781-805. New York, NY: Springer.
85. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. and Thomas, S. 2006. Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7: 221-258.
86. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, D., Clark, K. and Walpole, S. 2000. Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101: 121-165.
87. Togneri, W. and Anderson, S. E. 2003. How high poverty districts improve. Leadership, 33(1): 12-16.
88. Trotman, D. 2009. Networking for educational change: Concepts, impediments and opportunities for primary school professional learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 35: 341-356.
89. Tymms, P., Merrell, C., Heron, T., Jones, P., Albone, S. and Henderson, B. 2008. The importance of districts. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19: 261-274.
90. Waters, T. and Marzano, R. J. 2006. School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement, Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Educational Learning.
91. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., Jimerson, J. B. and Snodgrass Rangel, V. W. The data-informed district: A systemic approach to educational data use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. May. Denver, CO
92. Wiley, S. D. 2001. Contextual effects on student achievement. Journal of Educational Change, 2: 1-33.
93. Wiske, S. 1998. Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
94. Witziers, B., Bosker, R and Krüger, M. 2003. Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3): 398-425.
95. Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A. and Park, V. 2008. Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19: 239-259.
96. Yeh, S. 2006. Raising student achievement through rapid assessment and test reform, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
97. York-Barr, J. and Duke, K. 2004. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74: 255-316.
98. Youngs, P. and King, M. B. 2002. Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38: 643-670.
99. Zavadsky, H. 2009. Bringing school reform to scale: Five award-winning urban districts, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.