Advertisement

Large-Scale Reform in the Era of Accountability: The System Role in Supporting Data-Driven Decision Making

  • Amanda DatnowEmail author
  • Vicki Park
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 23)

Abstract

The contemporary education policy marks a shift away from the idea that change happens organically, one school at a time. Instead, there is a focus on creating a systematic infrastructure to support change across a large number of schools at once. Within this decade, we have witnessed several types of large-scale reform efforts in the United States and across other Western countries, including state and federal systems of standards and accountability and system-wide implementations of literacy and numeracy programs, among others.

Keywords

Professional Development Accountability System Instructional Decision Embed Sense Adequate Yearly Progress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. Ontario: International Centre for Educational Change, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J., & Anthes, K. (2001). Identifying the factors, conditions, and policies that support schools’ use of data for decision making and school improvement: Summary of findings. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  4. Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. (2003). After the test: Using data to close the achievement gap. San Francisco: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. VIII. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  6. Bernhardt, V. L. (1998). Multiple measures. Invited Monograph No. 4. CA: California Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (CASCD).Google Scholar
  7. Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the capital to the classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice. In S. Furhman, D. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 63–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Cromey, A. (2000). Using student assessment data: What can we learn from schools? Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.Google Scholar
  12. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: RoutledgeFalmer Press.Google Scholar
  13. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. A report commissioned by the NewSchools Venture Fund. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance.Google Scholar
  14. Datnow, A., Stringfield, S., Lasky, S., & Teddlie, C. (2006). Integrating educational systems for successful reform in diverse contexts. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dembosky, J. W., Pane, J. F., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2005). Data driven decisionmaking in Southwestern Pennsylvania School Districts. Working paper. Santa Monica, CA: RANDGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for Education.Google Scholar
  17. Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision-making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying power? THE (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal, 30(10), 19–21.Google Scholar
  18. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data rich world. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman, P. Gronn, J. MacBeath, B. Mulforld, & K. Riley (Eds.), The second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Elmore, R. F. (1979–1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.Google Scholar
  21. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, J., & Tung, R. (2001). Whole school reform: How schools use the data-based inquiry and decision making process. Paper presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  24. Finn, C. E., & Hess, F. M. (2004). On leaving no child left behind. Public Interest, 157, 35–57.Google Scholar
  25. Firestone, W. A., Fitz, J., & Broadfoot, P. (1999). Power, learning, and legitimation: Assessment implementation across levels in the United States and the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 759–793.Google Scholar
  26. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  27. Garet, M., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statutes. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 439–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools (Wisconsin Center for Education Research Working Paper No. 2005-9). Madison, WI: Authors.Google Scholar
  30. Ingram, D. Louis, K. S., Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, J. H. (1999). Educators as researchers. Schools in the Middle, 9(1), 38–41.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, J. H. (2000). Data-driven school improvement. Journal of School Improvement, 1(1), XX.Google Scholar
  33. 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(3), 496–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6–7, 9–10, 12, 14–15.Google Scholar
  35. Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). On the nature of qualitative evidence. A paper presented for the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Mandinach, E. B. Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  37. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H. Suttorp, M., Zimmer R. W., et al. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. Mason, S. (2002, April). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee Public Schools. A paper presented at the annual conference of AERA, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  39. McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator’s guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and Learning, 22(11), 18–33.Google Scholar
  40. McIver, M., & Farley, L. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office in improving instruction and student achievement (Report No. 65). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s standards educational goals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.Google Scholar
  42. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES-2007-482). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  43. No Child Left Behind. (2002). Public Law 107–110.Google Scholar
  44. Olsen, L. (1997). The data dialogue for moving school equity. California Tomorrow Perspectives, 5, 48–61.Google Scholar
  45. Petrides, L., & Nodine, T. (2005). Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven practices in urban school district. San Francisco, CA: NewSchools Venture Fund.Google Scholar
  46. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio and A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarason, S. (1997). Revisiting the creation of settings. Mind, culture, and activity, 4(3), 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Supovitz, J., & Taylor B. S. (2003). The Impacts of standards-based reform in Duval County, Florida, 1999–2002. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  51. Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice, research report #1. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.Google Scholar
  52. Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.Google Scholar
  54. Wohlstetter, P., Van Kirk, A. N., Robertson, P. J., & Mohrman, S. A. (1997). Organizing for successful school-based management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  55. Woody, E. L. (2004). Voices from the field: Educators respond to accountability. Berkeley, CA: Public Analysis of California Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations