Strategic Framing: How Leaders Craft the Meaning of Data Use for Equity and Learning

Educational Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 645-675

  Park, Vicki ^a   Daly, Alan J ^a   Guerra, Alison Wishard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

educational policy; educational reform; implementation; leadership; organizational behavior; qualitative research; school accountability; school capacity; school districts; urban schools

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878667218     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904811429295     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Benford R. D.,Snow D. A.Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.Annual Review of Sociology. 2000;26:11-39.
2. Bernhardt V. L.Data analysis for continuous improvements. 2004). Data analysis for continuous improvements (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Eye on Education.New York, NY: Eye on Education; 2004:.
3. Booher-Jennings J.Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system.American Educational Research Journal. 2005;42:231-268.
4. Campbell J. L.Social movements and organization theory. Davis G. F.McAdam D.Scott W. R.Zald M. N., ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005:41-72.
5. Celio M. B.,Harvey J.Buried treasure: Developing a management guide from mountains of school data. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education; 2005:.
6. Coburn C. E.Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2001;23 (2): 145-170.
7. Coburn C. E.Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation.American Educational Research Journal. 2006;43:343-379.
8. Coburn C. E.,Talbert J. E.Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain.American Journal of Education. 2006;112 (4): 469-495.
9. Coburn C. E.,Toure J.,Yamashita M.Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office.Teachers College Record. 2009;111:1115-1161.
10. Creswell J. W.Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1998:.
11. Datnow A.,Park V.,Kennedy B.Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California; 2008:.
12. Datnow A.,Park V.,Wohlstetter P.Achieving with data: How high performance driven school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary school students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California; 2007:.
13. Davies S.The paradox of progressive education: A frame analysis.Sociology of Education. 2002;75:269-286.
14. Diamond J. B.,Cooper K.The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago.National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. 2007;106 (1): 241-263.
15. Diamond J. B.,Spillane J. P.High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?.Teachers College Record. 2004;106:1145-1176.
16. Earl L.,Katz S.The second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Leithwood K.Hallinger Pl.Furman G.Gronn P.MacBeath J.Mulforld B.Riley K., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer; 2002:1003-1022.
17. Earl L.,Katz S.Leading schools in a data-rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; 2006:.
18. Firestone W. A.,Gonzalez R.Evidence and decision making. Moss P. A., ed. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education; 2007:132-154.
19. Firestone W. A.,Fitz J.,Broadfoot P.Power, learning, and legitimation: Assessment implementation across levels in the United States and the United Kingdom.American Educational Research Journal. 1999;36:759-793.
20. Grossman F. D.Dissent from within: How educational insiders use protest to create policy change.Educational Policy. 2010;24:655-686.
21. Herman J.,Gribbons B.Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: Final report to the Stuart Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles; 2001:.
22. Honig M. I.,Coburn C. E.Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda.Educational Policy. 2008;22:578-608.
23. Ingram D.,Louis K. S.,Schroeder R. G.Accountability policies and teacher decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice.Teachers College Record. 2004;106:1258-1287.
24. Kerr K. A.,Marsh J. A.,Ikemoto G. S.,Darilek H.,Barney H.Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts.American Journal of Education. 2006;112:496-520.
25. Lachat M. A.,Smith S.Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Special Issue on Transforming data into knowledge: Applications of data-based decision making to improve instructional practice.Journal of Education Change for Students Placed At-Risk. 2005;10 (3): 333-349.
26. Lipman P.Restructuring in context: A case study of teacher participation and the dynamics of ideology, race, and power.American Educational Research Journal. 1997;34 (1): 3-37.
27. Marsh J. A.,Pane J. F.,Hamilton L. S.Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2006:.
28. McAdams D.,Scott R. W.Social movements and organization theory. Davis G. F.McAdam D.Scott W. R.Zald M. N., ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005:4-40.
29. McDonnell L.M.Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1995;17 (3): 305-322.
30. Miles M. B.,Huberman A. M.Qualitative data analysis. 1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1994:.
31. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110.
32. Oakes J.,Wells A. S.,Jones M.,Datnow A.Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform.Teachers College Record. 1997;98:482-510.
33. Spillane J. P.,Reiser B. J.,Reimer T.Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research.Review of Educational Research. 2002;72:387-431.
34. Supovitz J. A.,Klein V.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 (CPRE); 2003:.
35. Togneri W.,Anderson S.Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance; 2003:.
36. Weber K.,Glynn M. A.Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick's theory.Organization Studies. 2006;27:1639-1660.
37. Weick K. E.,Sutcliffe K. M.,Obstfeld D.Organizing and the process of sensemaking.Organization Science. 2005;16:409-421.
38. Yin R.Case study research. 2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 2003:.
39. Young V. M.Teacher's use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms.American Journal of Education. 2006;112:521-548.