CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Educational Assessment and ImprovementEducational Leadership and PracticesTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Designing School Systems to Encourage Data Use and Instructional Improvement: A Comparison of School Districts and Charter Management Organizations

Farrell, Caitlin C.·2015·Educational Administration Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/0013161x14539806
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: As state and federal accountability systems have increased demands for evidence of student achievement, the use of data to inform practice has become more prevalent. More research is needed to understand not only what organizational factors shape data-use efforts but also how these factors enable or constrain educators’ use of data for instructional improvement. This article addresses this gap by examining how two types of education systems—school districts and charter management organizations (CMOs)—use data and allocate their organizational resources to this end. Methods : Data were collected from six secondary schools in two districts and two CMOs during the 2010-2011 school year. Over 70 interviews were conducted with teachers and school and system leaders. Patterns from within and across school systems are presented. Findings: Key contextual differences had a strong influence on data-use efforts: Accountability pressures shaped the patterns in data use, whereas other organizational conditions—structure and decision-making rights, size and growth trajectory, financial resources, and degree of regulation—restricted or facilitated the systems’ mobilization of resources for these efforts. Implications : This study suggests that the school systems as a whole play a critical role in supporting schools and educators in using data, regardless of whether that system is district or charter. As this article is one of the first to offer a comparative look at data use between school districts and CMOs, it lays the groundwork for diffusion of promising practices across these systems for school and system leaders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013161x14539806

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 112 · Cited by 58

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. 10.2307/3250961 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/15700761003731492 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045676 · DOI
  4. 10.1108/13673270110384419 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/asi.10113 · DOI
  6. Bogdan R. C., Bilken S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  7. Bulkley K. E., Henig J. R., Levin H. M. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  8. Bulkley K. E., Wohlstetter P. (2004). Taking account of charter schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
  9. Calkins A., Guenther W., Belfiore G., Lash D. (2007). The turnaround challenge. Boston: Mass Insight.
  10. Chrismer S. S., DiBara J. (2006). Formative assessment of student thinking in reading: An evaluation of the use of FAST-R in the Boston Public Schools. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
  11. Chubb J., Moe T. (1990). Politics, markets, and American’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  12. 10.1086/505056 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/15366367.2011.626729 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1086/663272 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_12 · DOI
  16. Datnow A., Park V., Kennedy B. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
  17. Datnow A., Park V., Wohlstetter P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high performance driven school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary school students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
  18. DeArmond M., Gross B., Bowen M., Demeritt A., Lake R. (2012). Managing talent for school coherence: Learning from charter management organizations. Bethel: Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
  19. Deming W. E. (1986). Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Centre for Advanced Engineering.
  20. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00375.x · DOI
  21. 10.2307/2392695 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9_34 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/s10833-013-9216-7 · DOI
  24. 10.1177/0895904811417587 · DOI
  25. 10.1108/02621710110365041 · DOI
  26. Furgeson J., Gill B., Haimson J., Killewald A., McCullough M., Nichols-Barrer I. (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts. Bethel: University of Washington and Mathematic Policy Research.
  27. 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-D · DOI · Paper page
  28. Goertz M. E., Olah L. N., Riggan M. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction (No. CPRE Research Report #RR-65). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
  29. Hamilton L., Halverson R., Jackson S., Mandinach E., Supovitz J. A., Wayman J. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  30. Herman R., Dawson P., Dee T. S., Greene J. C., Maynard R., Redding S., . (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  31. 10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00046-9 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/01972240252818225 · DOI
  33. 10.1086/663282 · DOI
  34. Hubbard L., Datnow A., Pruyn L. (in press). Multiple initiatives, multiple challenges: The promise and pitfalls of implementing data. Studies of Educational Evaluation.
  35. Huberman M., Parrish T., Hannan S., Arellanes M., Shambaugh L. (2011). Turnaround schools in California: Who are they and what strategies do they use? Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.
  36. Huguet A., Marsh J. A., Farrell C. C. (2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(52), 1-28.
  37. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00379.x · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1177/016146811211401108 · DOI
  39. Keskin H. (2005). The relationships between explicit and tacit oriented KM strategy and firm performance. Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(1), 169-175.
  40. 10.1108/09578231211249862 · DOI
  41. 10.1207/s15327671espr1003_7 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Lake R., Bowen M., Demeritt A., McCullough M., Haimson J., Gill B. (2012). Learning from charter school management organizations: Strategies for student behavior and teacher coaching. Bethel, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education and Mathematica Policy Research.
  43. Lake R., Dusseault B. (2011). Paying for scale: Results of a symposium on CMO finance. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
  44. Lake R., Dusseault B., Bowen M., Demeritt A., Hill P. (2010). The national study of charter management organization effectiveness. Seattle, WA: Mathematica Policy Research, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
  45. 10.1016/S0957-4174(01)00015-X · DOI
  46. 10.1108/02640470010361178 · DOI
  47. Mandinach E. B., Gummer E. S. (2013). Building educators’ data literacy: Differing perspectives. The Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 13(2), 1-5.
  48. Mandinach E. B., Honey M. (2008). Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
  49. 10.4135/9781506335568 · DOI
  50. 10.1177/0013161X09347731 · DOI
  51. Marsh J. A. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging literature. In Hightower A. M., Knapp M. S., Marsh J. A., McLaughlin M. W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25-40). New York: Teachers College Press.
  52. 10.1177/016146811211401106 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Marsh J. A., Farrell C. C. (in press). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision-making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership.
  54. Marsh J. A., Farrell C. C., Bertrand M. (in press). Trickle-down accountability: How middle school teachers engage students in data use. Educational Policy.
  55. 10.1080/01619560802222400 · DOI
  56. Marsh J. A., Pane J. F., Hamilton L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  57. 10.1108/13673270110400870 · DOI
  58. Means B., Padilla C., Gallagher L. (2010). Use of educational data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  59. Merriam S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  60. Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  61. Miron G., Urschel J. L., Aguilar M. A., Dailey B. (2012). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
  62. Moss P. A., Piety P. J. (2007). Evidence and decision making. In Moss P. A. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 1-14). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  63. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). State of the states: Trends and early lessons on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
  64. 10.1177/016146811211400807 · DOI
  65. 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Patton M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  68. Pedler M. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill.
  69. Pfeffer J., Sutton R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  70. 10.1177/016146810210400807 · DOI
  71. Petrides L. A., Nodine T. R. (2003). Knowledge management in education: Defining the landscape. Half Moon Bay, CA: Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education.
  72. Petrides L. A., Nodine T. (2005). Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven practices in urban school district. San Francisco: NewSchools Venture Fund.
  73. Piety P. (2013). Assessing the educational data movement. New York: Teachers College Press.
  74. 10.3102/0013189X11405038 · DOI
  75. Quinn R., Tompkins-Stange M., Meyerson D. (2013). Beyond grantmaking: Foundations as agents of change and institutional entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1, 1-19.
  76. 10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001 · DOI
  77. Ragin C., Becker H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  78. 10.1177/0013161X08318962 · DOI
  79. Sallis E., Jones G. (2002). Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning & education. London: Kogan Page Limited.
  80. 10.1177/0895904808328531 · DOI
  81. Scott W. R. (2002). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  82. 10.1108/eb040127 · DOI
  83. 10.3102/0002831212466909 · DOI
  84. Snipes J., Doolittle F., Herlihy C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school districts improve student achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.
  85. 10.1177/0013161X98034001004 · DOI
  86. 10.1177/016146810710901303 · DOI
  87. Stenmark D. (2001). Leveraging tacit knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9-24.
  88. Stinchcombe A. L. (1965). Social structure and organization. In March J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  89. Supovitz J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  90. Supovitz J. A., Klein V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE).
  91. 10.1177/00131610021969182 · DOI
  92. Walker S. (2006). 12 steps to a successful KM program. Knowledge Management Review, 9(4), 8-9.
  93. 10.1080/09243453.2011.652124 · DOI · Paper page
  94. 10.1086/505055 · DOI
  95. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932 · DOI · Paper page
  96. 10.1080/09243450802246376 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Wohlstetter P., Smith J., Farrell C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
  98. Wohlstetter P., Smith J., Farrell C., Hentschke G. C., Hirman J. (2011). How funding shapes the growth of charter management organizations: Is the tail wagging the dog ? Journal of Education Finance, 37(2), 150-174. · DOI
  99. 10.1177/0895904895009004001 · DOI
  100. 10.1108/13673270410541033 · DOI
  101. Yin R. K. (2009). Case study research (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  102. Zavadsky H. (2009). Building data-driven district systems: Examples from three award-winning urban systems. In Kowalski T. J., Lasley T. J. (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 173-190). New York: Routledge.
  103. 10.1080/01619560701312954 · DOI
  104. 10.1002/asi.20508 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Farrell, C. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Caitlin C.
ORCID
Farrell, Caitlin C.
Venue
Educational Administration Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-07
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
438-471
ISSN
  • 0013-161X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3519
DOI
10.1177/0013161x14539806
OpenAlex
W2029572725
Cited by
58
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Educational Administration Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Spencer Foundation
  • University of Southern California
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
educational data use, teaching improvement, school districts, charter management organizations, educational accountability, organizational structure, decision rights, school size, financial resources, regulation, secondary schools, school leadership, diffusion of practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review