Caitlin C. Farrell

How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making A framework for understanding capacity building

As accountability systems have increased demands for evidence of student learning, the use of data in education has become more prevalent in many countries. Although school and administrative leaders are recognizing the need to provide support to teachers on how to interpret and respond to data, there is little theoretically sound research on data-driven decision making (DDDM) to guide their efforts. Drawing on sociocultural learning theory, extant empirical literature, and findings from a recent study, this paper develops a framework for understanding how to build teacher capacity to use data, specifically informing what practices administrators might employ, when in the DDDM process to employ these practices, and how these mechanisms may build teacher knowledge and skills. Given the global economic climate, administrators face difficult choices in how to invest scarce resources to support data use and once invested, how to ensure that teachers gain, and sustain, the needed capabilities once the supports are removed. The framework provided herein presents a set of concepts that may be useful in guiding these decisions. Implications for leadership practice, as well as suggestions to guide future research and theory development, are discussed.

Charter Management Organizations: An Emerging Approach to Scaling Up What Works

Policymakers have shown increasing interest in replicating high-quality education models as a way to improve chronically underperforming schools. Charter management organizations (CMOs) have been touted as one organizational model poised to be such a vehicle for reform. CMOs are nonprofit organizations that operate a network of charter schools with a common mission or instructional design and shared central office support. In this article, the authors describe the theory of action behind CMOs and their emergence onto the education reform scene, finding promising signs that, as a network of schools, CMOs have more leverage than individual charter schools, and yet more nimbleness than traditional school districts, to replicate “what works.” Using data collected from a national study of 25 CMOs engaging in scale-up, the authors investigate the essential elements for CMO growth, identifying the influences of federal, state, and local policies, as well as internal organizational capacities, that either restrict or facilitate CMO expansion.

Conceptualizing Research–Practice Partnerships as Joint Work at Boundaries

This article presents a conceptual framework for analyzing how researchers and district leaders perceive and navigate differences they encounter in the context of research–practice partnerships. Our framework contrasts with images of partnership work as facilitating the translation of research into practice. Instead, we argue that partnership activity is best viewed as a form of joint work requiring mutual engagement across multiple boundaries. Drawing on a cultural–historical account of learning across boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and evidence from a study of two long-term partnerships, we highlight the value of the concepts of boundary practices in organizing joint work and boundary crossing as a way to understand how differences are recognized and navigated. The framework has implications for how partnerships can surface and make productive use of difference in organizing joint work and for how funders can better support the work of research–practice partnerships.

How School and District Leaders Access, Perceive, and Use Research:

This study examined how school and district leaders access, value, and use research. From a representative sample of school districts across the United States, we surveyed 733 school and district leaders as part of an effort to develop understanding of the prevalence of research use, the nature of leaders’ attitudes toward research, and individual and organizational correlates of research use. School and district leaders alike reported frequent use of research use and generally positive attitudes toward research. Leaders reported accessing research primarily through their professional networks. Those in certain roles, those pursuing or holding an advanced degree, and those who reported a strong organizational culture of evidence use reported higher levels of research use. These findings suggest that policy efforts to promote evidence use among education leaders will be welcomed but that policy makers need to take into account the prevalence of various types of research use in designing supports for evidence use.

Trickle-Down Accountability: How Middle School Teachers Engage Students in Data Use.

Despite a growing body of research on data use in education, there has been relatively little focus on the role of students. This article begins to fill this gap by exploring teacher and administrator reports on engaging students in data use at six middle schools. Even though teachers expressed a belief that involving students in data use would motivate students, they often enacted potentially demotivating, performance-oriented classroom structures: sharing data publically, comparing results with others, focusing on status, and providing limited feedback/support on how to close gaps in knowledge. School and district conditions and accountability policies shaped these classroom practices. In some cases, these contextual factors pressed teachers to focus on performance; in others, it buffered them, allowing for a greater emphasis on individual student learning. The authors contribute a theoretically driven, motivational perspective on data use and a cautionary tale of the “trickle-down” effects of accountability policy on students.

Metrics Matter: How Properties and Perceptions of Data Shape Teachers' Instructional Responses.

Purpose: Supporting teachers’ use of data has become a large part of educational leaders’ instructional leadership. Drawing on sensemaking theory, we explore how features of data and teachers’ perceptions of them may matter when teachers consider student learning data. Design: The article draws on a 1-year, comparative case study of five low-income, high needs middle schools in three districts. Data sources include interviews with district leaders (n = 13); school administrators, coaches, and case study teachers (n = 73); focus groups (n = 6) with non–case study teachers (n = 24); observations (n = 20); web-based activity logs; and document review. Findings: Different forms of data lead to a wide range of instructional responses. State assessments, used largely at the beginning of the school year, aided teachers in grouping their students but did little to promote change in instructional delivery. District benchmark data, which teachers did not generally find useful, were associated with reteaching and retesting content, creating small groups, and having students reflect on their data, usually without a shift in pedagogy. Data from common grade assessments—valued for their closeness to instruction as well as their predictive information for future success on state assessments—were most often tied to regrouping or reteaching standards not yet mastered by students, but there was some promise of change in pedagogy. Classroom assessment results and student work, identified by teachers as very useful, were proportionately most often linked to changes in instructional delivery. Implications: We offer implications for leadership preparation and practice, education policy, and future research on data use.

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

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.

Beyond Ideological Warfare: The Maturation of Research on Charter Schools

Philosophical debate about charter schools often results in theory and anecdotes overshadowing empirical research. This systematic review of trends in the charter school research over the last decade helps determine where empirical evidence exists and where new research is necessary. Findings reveal that student and school outcomes are the most common topics studied; however, a dearth of national, longitudinal research limits generalizability. Furthermore, the scope of the research was rather limited: most research examined a single state, district, or school. The article concludes with a discussion of possible new directions for research on charter schools.

Light touch, heavy hand: principals and data-use PLCs

Purpose The use of data for instructional improvement is prevalent in today’s educational landscape, yet policies calling for data use may result in significant variation at the school level. The purpose of this paper is to focus on tools and routines as mechanisms of principal influence on data-use professional learning communities (PLCs). Design/methodology/approach Data were collected through a comparative case study of two low-income, low-performing schools in one district. The data set included interview and focus group transcripts, observation field notes and documents, and was iteratively coded. Findings The two principals in the study employed tools and routines differently to influence ways that teachers interacted with data in their PLCs. Teachers who were given leeway to co-construct data-use tools found them to be more beneficial to their work. Findings also suggest that teachers’ data use may benefit from more flexibility in their day-to-day PLC routines. Research limitations/implications Closer examination of how tools are designed and time is spent in data-use PLCs may help the authors further understand the influence of the principal’s role. Originality/value Previous research has demonstrated that data use can improve teacher instruction, yet the varied implementation of data-use PLCs in this district illustrates that not all students have an equal opportunity to learn from teachers who meaningfully engage with data.

The Choices and Challenges of Charter Schools, Revisited

The Choices and Challenges of Charter Schools, Revisited Priscilla Wohlstetter, Joanna Smith & Caitlin C. Farrell a Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA b Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA c University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA Published online: 11 Mar 2015.