Organizational considerations in establishing the Data-Informed District

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 159-178

  Wayman, Jeffrey C ^a   Jimerson, Jo Beth ^b   Cho, Vincent ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

computer data systems; data driven decision making; districts; professional learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859573167     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: 17445124     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2011.652124     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. 2001. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25: 107-136.
2. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
3. Boisot, M. and Cox, B. 1999. The I-Space: A framework for analyzing the evolution of social computing. Technovation, 19: 525-536.
4. Borko, H. 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8): 3-15.
5. Boudett, K. P., City, E. A. and Murnane, R. J. 2005. Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1): 32-42.
7. Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2: 40-57.
8. Burch, P. and Hayes, T. 2009. "The role of private firms in data-based decision making". In Handbook of data-based decision making in education, Edited by: Kowalski, T. J. and Lasley, T. J. II. 54-71. New York, NY: Routledge.
9. Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13: 442-455.
10. Copland, M. A. 2003. Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25: 375-395.
11. Datnow, A. 2006. "Connections in the policy chain: The "co-construction" of implementation in comprehensive school reform". In New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity, Edited by: Honig, M. I. 105-123. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
12. Datnow, A., Park, V. and Wohlstetter, P. 2007. Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. Center on Educational Governance
13. Datnow, A. and Stringfield, S. 2000. Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5: 183-204.
14. Davenport, T. H. 2005. Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16. Deike, M. A. 2009. The principal as an instructional leader within the context of effective data use (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
17. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S. and Birman, B. F. 2002. Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24: 81-112.
18. DuFour, R., Eaker, R. and DuFour, R. 2005. "Recurring themes of professional learning communities and the assumptions they challenge". In On common ground: The power of professional learning communities, Edited by: DuFour, R., Eaker, R. and DuFour, R. 7-29. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
19. Eisenhardt, K. 1990. Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making. California Management Review, 32(3): 39-54.
20. Elmore, R. F. 2003. "Accountability and capacity". In The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing, Edited by: Carnoy, M., Elmore, R. and Siskin, L. S. 195-209. New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Elmore, R. F. 2004. School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Farley-Ripple, E. N. 2008. Accountability, evidence, and school district decision-making. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
23. Forman, C., Ghose, A. and Wiesenfeld, B. 2008. Examining the relationship between review and sales: The role of reviewer identity discloser in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19: 291-313.
24. Fullan, M. 2007. The new meaning of educational change, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25. Gallucci, C. 2008. Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114: 541-581.
26. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. and Yoon, K. S. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38: 915-945.
27. Guskey, T. R. 1989. Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13: 439-453.
28. Guskey, T. R. 2002. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8: 381-391.
29. Guskey, T. R. 2009. Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional development. Educational Horizons, 87: 224-233.
30. Guskey, T. R. and Yoon, K. S. 2009. What works in professional development?. Phi Delta Kappan, 90: 495-500.
31. Halverson, R., Prichett, R., Grigg, J. and Thomas, C. 2005. The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools (WCER Working Paper No. 2005-9), Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/Publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2005_9.pdf
32. Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Honig, M. I. 2006. Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28: 357-383.
34. 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(4): 578-608.
35. 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.
36. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M. and Beavis, A. 2005. Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10): 1-28.
37. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H. and Barney, H. 2006. Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112: 496-520.
38. Knapp, M. S. 2003. Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27: 109-157.
39. Lachat, M. A. and Smith, S. 2005. Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10: 333-349.
40. Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L. and Provost, L. P. 2009. The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42. Leonardi, P. M. 2009. Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35: 407-441.
43. Levinthal, D. A. and Warglien, M. 1999. Landscape design: Designing for local action in complex worlds. Organization Science, 10: 342-357.
44. Long, L., Rivas, L. M., Light, D. and Mandinach, E. B. 2008. "The evolution of a homegrown data warehouse: TUSDStats". In Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, Edited by: Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M. 209-232. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
45. Louis, K. S. 2007. Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8: 1-24.
46. 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: The Wallace Foundation.
47. Macguire, S., McKelvey, B., Mirabeau, L. and Oztas, N. 2006. "Complexity science and organization studies". In The SAGE handbook of organizational studies, Edited by: Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. and Nord, W. R. Vol. 1-2, 165-214. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48. Malone, T., Yates, J. and Benjamin, R. 1987. Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies: Effects of information technologies on market structure and corporate strategies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6): 484-497.
49. Mandinach, E., Honey, M., Light, D. and Brunner, C. 2008. "A conceptual framework for data-driven decision-making". In Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, Edited by: Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M. 13-31. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
50. Markus, M. L. and Robey, D. 1998. Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34: 583-598.
51. Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L. and Barney, J. B. 1995. Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19: 487-505. doi:10. 2307/249630
52. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A. and Bakia, M. 2009. Implementing data-informed decision-making in schools-Teacher access, supports and use, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
53. Mieles, T. and Foley, E. 2005. Data warehousing: Preliminary findings from a study of implementing districts, Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
54. Moll, K. A. 2009. Central office data use: A focus on district and school goals. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
55. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
56. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B. and Youngs, P. 2000. Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108: 259-299.
57. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14-37.
58. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. and Sasaki, K. 1998. "Three tales of knowledge-creating companies". In Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing, and measuring knowledge, 146-172. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59. O'Day, J. A. 2002. Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72: 293-329.
60. Park, V. and Datnow, A. 2009. Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29: 477-494.
61. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R. and Gallagher, L. P. 2007. What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44: 921-958.
62. Rivkin, J. W. and Siggelkow, N. 2002. Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes. Complexity, 7(5): 31-43.
63. Schildkamp, K. and Kuiper, W. 2010. Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26: 482-496.
64. Senge, P. M. 2006. The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization, New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
65. Shen, J. and Cooley, V. E. 2008. Critical issues in using data for decision-making. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11: 319-329.
66. 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.
67. Spillane, J. P. and Louis, K. S. 2002. School Improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101: 83-104. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2002.tb00005
68. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J. and Reimer, T. 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72: 387-431.
69. Stenmark, D. 2000. Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3): 9-24.
70. Stone, M. M. and Brush, C. G. 1996. Planning in ambiguous contexts: The dilemma of meeting needs for commitment and demands for legitimacy. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 633-652.
71. Stringfield, S. and Datnow, A. 2002. "Systemic supports for schools serving students placed at risk". In Educating at-risk students, Edited by: Stringfield, S. and Land, D. 269-288. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
72. Supovitz, J. A. 2006. The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
73. Supovitz, J. 2010. "Knowledge-based organizational learning for instructional improvement". In Second international handbook of educational change, Edited by: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D. 707-723. New York, NY: Springer.
74. Supovitz, J. A. and Klein, V. 2003. Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education-University of Pennsylvania.
75. Supovitz, J. A. and Turner, H. M. 2000. The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom cultures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37: 963-980.
76. Swan, G. 2009. Tools for data-driven decision making in teacher education: Designing a portal to conduct field observation inquiry. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3): 107-113.
77. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. and Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27: 425-478.
78. Wade, M. and Hulland, J. 2004. Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28: 107-142.
79. Wayman, J. C. 2007. "Student data systems for school improvement: The state of the field". In TCEA Educational Technology Research Symposium, 156-162. Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications.
80. Wayman, J. C. The Data-Informed District: A preliminary framework. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. May. Denver, CO
81. Wayman, J. C., Brewer, C. and Stringfield, S. Leadership for effective data use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April). San Diego, CA.
82. 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.
83. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V. and Johnston, M. T. 2007. The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District, Austin, TX: The University of Texas.
84. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V. and Richards, M. P. 2010. "Student data systems and their use for educational improvement". In International encyclopedia of education, Edited by: Peterson, P., Baker, E. and McGraw, B. 14-20. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
85. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V. and Shaw, S. M. 2009. First-year results from an efficacy study of the Acuity data system, Austin, TX: Authors. Retrieved from http://edadmin.edb.utexas.edu/datause
86. Wayman, J. C., Conoly, K., Gasko, J. and Stringfield, S. 2008. "Supporting equity inquiry with student data computer systems". In Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, Edited by: Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M. 171-190. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
87. Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S. and Stringfield, S. 2006. "Leadership for data-based decision-making: Collaborative data teams". In New models of professional development for learner centered leadership, Edited by: Danzig, A., Borman, K., Jones, B. and Wright, B. 189-206. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
88. Wayman, J. C., Snodgrass Rangel, V. W., Jimerson, J. B. and Cho, V. 2010. Improving data use in NISD: Becoming a Data-Informed District, Austin, TX: The University of Texas. Retrieved from http://edadmin.edb.utexas.edu/datause
89. Wayman, J. C. and Stringfield, S. 2006. Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112: 549-571.
90. Wayman, J. C., Stringfield, S. and Yakimowski, M. 2004. Software enabling school improvement through analysis of student data (CRESPAR Technical Report No. 67), Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report67.pdf
91. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N. and Orphanos, S. 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad, Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
92. Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1-19.
93. Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sense making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-652.
94. Weick, K. E. and Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381.
95. Wixom, B. H. and Todd, P. A. 2005. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16: 85-102.
96. 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.
97. Yates, S. M. 2007. Teachers' perceptions of their professional learning activities. International Education Journal, 8(2): 213-221.
98. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B. and Shapley, K. 2007. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed. gov/ncee/edlabs
99. Young, V. M. 2006. Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112: 521-548.