Abstract
In response to the vast amounts of data associated with the accountability movement and the rhetoric of data-informed decision-making, we interviewed 16 principals to find out what streams of data they used and what decisions they made by using the data. We found that: (a) student achievement data are predominantly used to the extent of neglecting other streams of data such as student and community background data and school process data; (b) student achievement data are used more for accountability purposes—for assessing “of” rather than “for” the learning; (c) different streams of data are rarely used together to derive rich meaning for decision-making; and (d) school districts differ in the extent to which their principals use data to improve curriculum and instruction. The study pointed both to the challenges and to the opportunities of making data-informed decisions to improve our schools.
Résumé
Exploiter les données pour prendre les décisions: perspectives de 16 directeurs d’écoles au Michigan (États-Unis) – En réaction aux énormes quantités de données liées au mouvement de l’obligation redditionnelle et au discours sur la prise de décision fondée sur les données, nous avons interrogé 16 directeurs d’établissements scolaires pour cerner les flux de données qu’ils utilisent et les décisions qu’ils prennent à partir de ces données. Nous avons fait les constatations suivantes : a) ils utilisent principalement les données sur les résultats des élèves, au point de négliger les flux d’autres données telles que celles relatives aux contextes des élèves et des communautés ainsi qu’aux processus scolaires; b) ils exploitent les données sur les résultats des élèves essentiellement à des fins redditionelles pour une évaluation « de » l’apprentissage et moins « pour » l’apprentissage; c) ils analysent rarement les différents flux de données parallèlement de sorte à en tirer des conclusions précieuses pour la prise de décision; et d) le degré d’exploitation des données par les directeurs en vue d’améliorer les programmes et l’enseignement diffère selon les districts scolaires. Cette étude signale à la fois les défis et les chances d’une prise de décision éclairée par les données dans le but de perfectionner nos établissements scolaires.
Zusammenfassung
Datenbasierte Entscheidungsfindung: 16 Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter in Michigan, USA, geben Auskunft – Angesichts der gewaltigen Datenmengen, die mit der Einführung einer Rechenschaftspflicht für Schulen und mit der Formel der datenbasierten Entscheidungsfindung einhergehen, haben wir Interviews mit 16 Schulleiterinnen und Schuleitern geführt, um herauszufinden, welche Art von Daten sie benutzen und was für Entscheidungen sie anhand dieser Daten getroffen haben. Wir haben herausgefunden: a) dass Leistungsdaten von Schülerinnen und Schülern meist in gleichem Maße genutzt werden, wie andere Daten, beispielsweise Angaben über den persönlichen und sozialen Hintergrund der Schülerinnen und Schüler oder Prozessdaten der Schule, außer Acht gelassen werden; b) dass Leistungsdaten der Schülerinnen und Schüler vorwiegend für die Rechenschaftslegung eingesetzt werden – also eher für die Bewertung „des” Lernens als „für” das Lernen selbst; c) dass selten verschiedene Datenströme zusammengeführt werden, um daraus vielschichtige Informationen für die Entscheidungsfindung abzuleiten; und d) dass der Umfang, in dem die Schulleitungen Daten zur Verbesserung der Lehrpläne und des Unterrichts nutzen, von Schulbezirk zu Schulbezirk variiert. In der Studie werden sowohl die Herausforderungen als auch die Chancen der datenbasierten Entscheidungsfindung für die Verbesserung unserer Schulen aufgezeigt.
Resumen
El uso de datos para la toma de decisiones: la óptica de 16 directores de escuela en Michigan, EE.UU. – Como respuesta a la gran cantidad de datos que se asocian con el movimiento a favor de la rendición de cuentas y la retórica sobre la toma de decisiones basada en el conocimiento de datos, hemos entrevistado a 16 directores de escuela con el fin de comprobar qué caudales de datos han usado y qué decisiones han tomado al usar estos datos. Hemos comprobado que: a) los datos sobre rendimiento estudiantil se han usado de forma predominante hasta la medida de desatender otros caudales de datos, tales como datos sobre trasfondo de los estudiantes y de la comunidad, y datos sobre procesos escolares; b) los datos sobre rendimiento estudiantil se utilizan más bien para fines de rendimientos de cuentas, para realizar una evaluación más bien “sobre” y no tanto “para” el aprendizaje; c) los diferentes caudales de datos rara vez se utilizan en conjunto, con el fin de obtener una valiosa base de conocimientos para la toma de decisiones; y d) los distritos escolares difieren en cuanto a la medida en la que sus directores usan datos para mejorar los planes de estudio y la instrucción. El estudio señala tanto los retos como las posibilidades que ofrecen las decisiones tomadas sobre la base de datos para mejorar el rendimiento de las escuelas en EE.UU.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association of School Administrators. (2006). Using data to improve schools: What’s working. Alexandria, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Austin, G., & Reynolds, D. (1990). Managing for improved school effectiveness: An international survey. School Organization, 10(2), 167–178.
Bernhardt, V. (2003). Using data to improve student learning in elementary schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Bernhardt, V. (2004). Using data to improve student learning in middle schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Bernhardt, V. (2005). Using data to improve student learning in high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Celio, M. B., & Harvey, J. (2005). Buried treasure: Developing a management guide from mountains of school data. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469–496.
Cohen, D. K. (1991). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Corbin, J. C., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creighton, T. B. (2001). Data analysis in administrators’ hands: An oxymoron? School Administrator, 58(4), 6–11.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. D., et al. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 1–13.
Goldring, E. B., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239–253.
Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1974). Looking behind classroom door. Worthington, OH: Charles A Jones Publishing Company.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34.
Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 20–28.
Hsieh, C.-l., & Shen, J. (1998). Teachers’, principals’, and superintendents’ perceptions of leadership. School Leadership and Management, 18(1), 107–121.
Kerr, K. A., et al. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520.
Knapp, M. S., et al. (2006). Data-informed leadership in education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(supp.), 679–706.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The principal profile. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Leithwood, K., et al. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Retrieved September 2007, from www.wallacefoundation.org/wf/knowledgecenter/knowledgetopics.
Louis, K. S., et al. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 33(4), 757–798.
Marks, H. M., & 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.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., et al. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Michigan Department of Education. (2006). Michigan school improvement framework. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
Reeves, D. (2004). Assessing educational leaders: evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rodriguez-Campos, L., Rincones-Gomez, R., & Shen, J. (2008). Do teachers, principals, and superintendents perceive leadership the same way: A structural equation modeling test of a multi-dimensional construct across groups. Frontiers of Education in China, 3(3), 360–385.
Salpeter, J. (2004). Data: Mining with a mission. Technology and Learning, 24(8), 30–32. 34, 36.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 440–443.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (5th ed.). Bonton: Allyn and Bacon.
Sharkey, N. S., & Murnane, X. (2006). Tough choices in designing a formative assessment system. American Journal of Education, 112, 572–588.
Shen, J. (Ed.). (2005). School principals. New York: Peter Lang.
Shen, J., & Ma, X. (2006). Does systemic change work? Curricular and instructional practice in the context of systemic change. Leadership and Policy in School, 5(3), 231–256.
Taylor, A., & Valentine, B. (1985). Effective schools: What research says about S series (Data Research Report No. 1). West Haven, CT: National Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274 073).
Wahlstrom, D. (2006). Using data to improve student learning. Retrieved September 2007, from http://www.successlineinc.com/MichiganDataWorkshops.
Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006a). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112, 549–571.
Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006b). Data use for school improvement: School practices and research perspectives. American Journal of Education, 112, 463–468.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shen, J., Cooley, V.E., Reeves, P. et al. Using data for decision-making: perspectives from 16 principals in Michigan, USA. Int Rev Educ 56, 435–456 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-010-9172-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-010-9172-x