Goedele Verhaeghe

Using school performance feedback: perceptions of primary school principals

The present study focuses on the perception of primary school principals of school performance feedback (SPF) and of the actual use of this information. This study is part of a larger project which aims to develop a new school performance feedback system (SPFS). The study builds on an eclectic framework that integrates the literature on SPFSs. Through in-depth interviews with 16 school principals, 4 clusters of factors influencing school feedback use were identified: context, school and user, SPFS, and support. This study refines the description of feedback use in terms of phases and types of use and effects on school improvement. Although school performance feedback can be seen as an important instrument for school improvement, no systematic use of feedback by school principals was observed. This was partly explained by a lack of skills, time, and support.

The influence of competences and support on school performance feedback use

Information‐rich environments are created to promote data use in schools for the purpose of self‐evaluation and quality assurance. However, providing feedback does not guarantee that schools will actually put it to use. One of the main stumbling blocks relates to the interpretation and diagnosis of the information. This study examines the relationship between data literacy competences, support given in interpreting the information, actual use of the feedback and potential school improvement effect. A randomised field experiment with 188 school principals from primary education was set up and a post‐test was used to investigate the effects of a support initiative. The results revealed that a minority of schools invested significantly in the interpretation and diagnosis of the school performance feedback (SPF), despite the fact that most of the respondents showed an interest in the SPF report. In addition, data competence support and the subsequent use of feedback were found to be limited.

Flemish Primary Teachers' Use of School Performance Feedback and the Relationship with School Characteristics.

Background: Schools are increasingly confronted with the challenges that information about school performance brings with it. It is common for schools’ use of performance feedback to be limited. Equally, however, there are documented cases in which school performance feedback is meaningfully used. Purpose: This study looks at how Flemish primary school teachers use school performance feedback and to what extent this use (or lack of use) is determined by school characteristics. Based on evidence from existing research, we focus on four school-related explanatory variables: attitude with regard to school performance feedback, the organisational functioning of the school, performance-orientation and actual pupil performances. The research questions addressed are: (1) ‘To what extent do teachers use school performance feedback?’ and (2) ‘To what extent can the use of school performance feedback by teachers be explained by school characteristics?’ Sample: The use of school performance feedback was studied in the context of a Flemish school feedback initiative; 183 primary schools were given school performance feedback at school and pupil level for mathematics, technical reading and spelling, supplemented by data with regard to pupil characteristics. A survey was conducted in this representative sample of Flemish primary schools. In each school, all teachers were asked to complete a survey on their use of the school performance feedback and on their perception of the mentioned school characteristics. The questionnaire was filled out by 2578 respondents from 183 schools. Respondents were regular teachers or teachers that were occupied as pupil welfare co-ordinators. Design and methods: The survey results were analysed statistically. In addition to descriptive analyses, multi-level analyses were carried out to explain variation in the process and the results of school performance feedback use. The school characteristics described in the theoretical framework were included as explaining factors in both models, supplemented by the background variables on the teachers surveyed. Results: Only a limited number of respondents stated that the available school performance feedback had made an actual contribution towards promoting critical reflection with regard to school functioning and/or their own classroom practice. The analyses confirm that the way in which school performance feedback use is approached by teachers is not independent of characteristics of the school. There is a relationship between the process and result of school feedback use and the role of the school principal as culture builder and with the professional relationships between team members. Conclusion: By and large, respondents reported no or only limited results of school performance feedback use. There are, however, appreciable differences between team members within schools. We conclude that the way in which school performance feedback use is implemented by teachers cannot be seen in isolation from the characteristics of the school. Given the research findings, principals with a strong focus on culture building and strong professional relationships between team members offer a slightly better chance of getting teachers to use school performance feedback in a worthwhile and productive way.

Improving Data Literacy in Schools: Lessons from the School Feedback Project

As in many other countries across the globe, there is a growing expectation, e.g., from policy makers, that schools in Belgium (Flanders) are using data to take school policy decisions, as a consequence of their growing autonomy. However, the reality is not always in line with these ambitious expectations. Therefore, several initiatives are taken to support schools, especially the school principals, to—further—improve their capacities to handle data in a proper way. In this study, we will focus on how primary school principals look at the different types of support they receive to use data about their pupils’ performance as part of a large-scale School Feedback Project. The following research questions will be handled: (1) “What are the principals’ strengths and weaknesses with regard to data literacy?,” (2) “To what extent have support initiatives had an impact on data literacy of the participating principals?,” and (3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of support? Different types of support were provided to increase the data literacy capacities for the participating schools and their principals: a help desk (for all the schools, n = 195), INSET (external training) by researchers (n = 34 schools), ONSET (internal training) by researchers (n = 7 schools), ONSET (internal training) by a pedagogical advisor (n = 12), and Peer consultation (n = 4 ´ 2 schools). In total, 45 principals (distributed across the conditions) were interviewed and two additional focus group discussions were held. Overall, the study shows that initiatives aimed at developing data-use competencies and having access to support actually can make a contribution to improving the data literacy competencies. We explain that different types of support show different results.

Diversity in school performance feedback systems

As data-based decision making is receiving increased attention in education, more and more school performance feedback systems (SPFSs) are being developed and used worldwide. These systems provide schools with data on their functioning. However, little research is available on the characteristics of the different SPFSs. Therefore, this study reflects on the characteristics of SPFSs to provide feedback designers and users arguments for making sound choices in selecting SPFSs with particular characteristics. The results of our study show that the 5 SPFSs selected for the purpose of comparison differ with respect to features related to data gathering and data analysis processes, the content, and the numerical measures and representation modes used. A wide variety can be detected in terms of the complexity and accuracy of data modeling. Users need to be properly informed about the underlying rationale for the features of each SPFS, and on the limitations and strengths of the performance indicators used.