Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 125–152 | Cite as

Supporting assessment autonomy: How one small school articulated the infrastructure needed to own and use student data

  • Karen Hunter Quartz
  • Jarod Kawasaki
  • Daniel Sotelo
  • Kimberly Merino
Article
First Online:
  • 541 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports the results of an 18-month integrated, problem-solving research study of one new school’s efforts to create a K-12 system of student assessment data that reflects their innovative vision for personalized and student-centered instruction. Based on interview, observational, and documentary data, the authors report how teachers articulate, measure, and assess student core competencies, aligned with a common vision and supported by a technology interface designed to promote data use. Findings from this study add to the research literature on assessment and data use by articulating the necessary knowledge and supports teachers in new autonomous schools need to develop and formatively use student assessment data.

Keywords

Teacher autonomy Assessment Data use Small schools reform 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 205–221). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.Google Scholar
  3. Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archbald, D., & Keleher, J. (2008). Measuring conditions and consequences of tracking in the high school curriculum. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 26–42.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, E. L. (2000). Understanding educational quality: Where validity meets technology. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Banks, J. A. (1996). The historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications for transformative teaching. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 64–87). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Betebenner, D. W., Howe, K. R., & Foster, S. S. (2005). On school choice and test-based accountability. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(41), 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students’ learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colbert, R. D., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2006). School counselors as resource brokers: The case for including teacher efficacy in data-driven programs. Professional School Counseling, 9(3), 216–222.Google Scholar
  11. Conchas, G. Q., & Rodriguez, L. F. (2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the coalition campus schools project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639–673.Google Scholar
  15. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data, how high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  18. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foote, M. (2012). Freedom from high-stakes testing: A formula for small school success. In M. Hantzopoulos & A. R. Tyner-Mullings (Eds.), Critical small schools: Beyond privatization in New York City urban educational reform. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Frisbie, D. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement, 7(1).Google Scholar
  22. Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based management: reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(4).Google Scholar
  23. Garrett, J. L. (2006). It’s time to spring into action research. Kappa Delta Pi, 42(3).Google Scholar
  24. Gewertz, C. (2007). Easing rules over schools gains favor. Education Week, 26, 1.Google Scholar
  25. Graue, E., & Johnson, E. (2011). Reclaiming assessment through accountability that is “just right”. Teachers College Record, 113(8).Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, J. S., & Roza, M. (2005). Decentralized decisionmaking for schools: New promise for an old idea? RAND Corporation. Report No. OP-153-EDU.Google Scholar
  27. Hantzopoulos, M., & Tyner-Mullings, A. R. (Eds.). (2012). Critical small schools: Beyond privatization in New York City urban educational reform. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–195). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.Google Scholar
  30. Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement what do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26(3), 465–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School‚ central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. Multicultural education series. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers’ attitudes and students’ achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindbloom, C. E. (1992). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  39. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (2002). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 95–132). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Mehan, H. (2012). In The Front Door: Creating a College-Bound Culture of Learning. Boulder CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  44. Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Moore Johnson, S., & Landman, J. (2000). “ Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms”: The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. The Teachers College Record, 102(1), 85–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murnane, R. J., Sharkey, N. S., & Boudett, K. P. (2005). Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10(3), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Academy of Education. (1999). Recommendations regarding research priorities: An advisory report to the national educational research policy and priorities board. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  48. Nicholson, M. R., & Brown, J. R. (2010). Value-added analysis in instruction. School Administrator, 67(2), 26–30.Google Scholar
  49. Notar, C. E., Zuelke, D. C., Wilson, J. D., & Yunker, B. D. (2004). The table of specifications: Insuring accountability in teacher made tests. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2).Google Scholar
  50. Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29(5), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  53. Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  54. Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 77–92.Google Scholar
  55. Rothman, R. (2004). Benchmarking and alignment of state standards and assessments. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shepard, L. A. (2008). The role of assessment in a learning culture. In Teaching and Learning (pp. 229–253). Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180.Google Scholar
  58. Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., et al. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar
  61. Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Hunter Quartz
    • 1
  • Jarod Kawasaki
    • 1
  • Daniel Sotelo
    • 2
  • Kimberly Merino
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Education and Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.UCLA Community SchoolLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options