A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement
Abstract
Analyzing mathematics and reading achievement outcomes from a district-level random assignment study fielded in over 500 schools within 59 school districts and seven states, the authors estimate the 1-year impacts of a data-driven reform initiative implemented by the Johns Hopkins Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE). CDDRE consultants work with districts to implement quarterly student benchmark assessments and provide district and school leaders with extensive training on interpreting and using the data to guide reform. Relative to a control condition, in which districts operated as usual without CDDRE services, the data-driven reform initiative caused statistically significant districtwide improvements in student mathematics achievement. The CDDRE intervention also had a positive effect on reading achievement, but the estimates fell short of conventional levels of statistical significance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Using data effectively can improve how schools function by raising student achievement.
“Although effective data use can help improve the functioning of schools in terms of increased student achievement”
From Data teams for school improvement (2016) · cites this paper as Carlson, Borman, & Robinson, 2011
When teachers use DBDM effectively, this can lead to improved student learning and achievement.
“When teachers use DBDM effectively, this can lead to improved student learning and achievement”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Carlson, Borman, & Robinson, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 249
- Authors
- Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 378-398
- ISSN
- 0162-3737 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1062
- OpenAlex
- W2135548379
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 32.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- school district reform, reading achievement, mathematics achievement, educational data use, principal training
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
